Judiciary
Judge ‘a Petty Tyrant’ for Jailing 46 Over Ringing Cell Phone
Posted Nov 28, 2007 5:35 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A New York judge should be removed from the bench for acting like a “petty tyrant” when he jailed 46 people due to a ringing cell phone, a commission has recommended.
Judge Robert Restaino of Niagara Falls City Court "engaged in what can only be described as two hours of inexplicable madness” when he ordered the jailing, according to the opinion by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Restaino had reacted to a ringing phone in his courtroom during a slate of domestic violence cases in March 2005, the New York Times reports. He warned the roughly 70 people in his courtroom that everyone would be going to jail if the cell phone owner didn’t own up. Eventually, 46 people were jailed for part of the day.
The commission said the judge’s conduct “transcended poor judgment” and had no "semblance of a lawful basis.” Its recommendation goes to the Court of Appeals, the New York Law Journal reports.
Restaino plans to appeal, the Associated Press reports. He told the commission that he was under stress in his personal life at the time.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
Justice for All
Nov 30, 2007 9:30 AM CST
If the commission accepts Judge Restaino’s “I was under stress” defense, it will only reinforce the public perception that the judicial system is scarcely about justice and more about privilege. He locked up 45 (maybe 46) innocent people in order to force someone to incriminate himself or herself. He should have to pay those people for salaries lost while in jail, appointments missed, children who weren’t picked up by parents and whatever other incoveniences his tantrum caused. Then they should put him in jail for that same amount of time - times 45 (or 46).
Flag this comment
Dan
Nov 30, 2007 9:45 AM CST
Hey, this guy has a great idea for law enforcement - if you have 100 suspects, just lock them all up until someone confesses! That’s fair!
Flag this comment
Criminal Defense Law Center
Nov 30, 2007 10:39 AM CST
Judge Restraino’s “Under Stress” defense parodies the current Hollywood “rehab” phenomenon for those who’ve been caught acting in a bizzare manner. However, I opine that Judge Restraino wouldn’t accept a similar defense in his courtroom. Our fear that we’re becoming a nation of snitches is tempered by the actions of the Niagra 46 for keeping quiet. We still fear the power of an unrestrained judiciary and/or prosecutors who have one set of laws for the defense and another for themselves. This story is somewhat humorous. But too many are incarcerated for terms longer than the law intends simply because the judge has the power to do so. We shouldn’t look at this as an isolated case but as a practice which has become all too commonplace.
Flag this comment
R
Nov 30, 2007 12:48 PM CST
Re comment #3: “Judge Restraino” - that was a funny typo.
He’s actually a Restaino on the judiciary.
Flag this comment
Joe Whisler
Nov 30, 2007 1:17 PM CST
He should have used the Dan White defense.
Flag this comment
CJT
Nov 30, 2007 2:54 PM CST
What a jerk. He should be removed from the bench and disbarred.
Flag this comment
Anti-Cell Phone
Nov 30, 2007 9:30 PM CST
Finally someone who agrees cell phones should be turned off in public places. I find it just as sickening that no one would come forward and tell the person with the cell phone to have some respect and turn the phone off. I think it is ridiculous how so many will turn a blind eye to cell phones ringing in public. Worst yet the folks who actually answer them when in a meeting. What happened to the days when you respected the court of law, dressed up if you had to appear, didn’t dare talk back, chew gum and most certainly wouldn’t disrupt court proceedings with your cell phone ringing!
I don’t dismiss the judges poor excuse of “Stress in his personal life” either but what happened to being respectful.
Flag this comment
Marie
Nov 30, 2007 11:28 PM CST
This is exactly why there should not be absolute judicial imunity.
Flag this comment
Ryan
Dec 1, 2007 10:24 AM CST
It’s about time someone took a stand against the un-courteous and disrespectful. Kudos to the judge for trying to preserve order in his court. In today’s society, it is no surprise that people could be so disrespectful!.
Flag this comment
pt
Dec 1, 2007 2:52 PM CST
To Ryan and Anti-Cell Phone:
so…one persons cell phone going off justifies jailing 45 people who did nothing huh? 1983 action anyone?
As for this judge, I hate to say it but it just shows how many morons are on the bench in the lower courts in upstate ny. Don’t get me wrong, there are some brilliant judges in very small court rooms, but there are some real idiots to, many of them aren’t even lawyers.
Flag this comment
CJT
Dec 3, 2007 1:30 AM CST
To Ryan and Anti-Cell Phone,
I hope your phone never goes off in this guy’s court. Actually I take that back, I hope you don’t happen to be in court when one of those cell phone users you seem to depise has his or her phone go off.
Actually no… that would be almost as hilarious as you trying to defend this judge.
Flag this comment
CPR [Cell Phone Respect] Commission
Dec 3, 2007 11:40 AM CST
While observing appellant’s counsel argue before the Pennsylvania Superior Court, the appellee’s counsel’s cell phone rang - twice. Never mind that there must have been 20 NO CELL PHONE signs in the anteroom.
While listening to a judge speaking at a seminar, the cell phone of thelawyer sitting next to me rang, whereupon he engaged in a loud and lengthy conversation with his granddaughter, whose baseball team had just won a game.
The speaker at my college reunion seminar interrupted his speech to pull out his cell phone and look at it the first time it rang. The second time it rang, he interrupted his speech again to carry on an extended cell phone conversation with his daughter while more than a 100 people sat in confused silence. (It was not planned as a joke).
My list goes on . . . .
I sympathize with Judge Restaino. The only mistake he made was arguing “personal stress” rather than “cell phone trauma,” which should be a justifiable defense for anyone subjected to the uncivilized use of cell phones - widespread though it is.
Flag this comment
APT
Dec 3, 2007 11:56 PM CST
Give me a break. A cell phone ring justifies jailing 46 people? You’ve got to be kidding me? While some people should certainly be smacked over the head with their phones others suffer from a far worse problem. It’s called “self-infatuation” and the main symptom is thinking that you have a right to be free from life’s petty annoyances. Doctors estimate that it hurts a lot more people per year than cell phones.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.