dwight in philly Posted June 11, 2013 Posted June 11, 2013 While it's true that the plea bargain was worked out between the attorneys, it always needs to be approved by the judge. That's the point here. Attorneys are merely advocates and nothing more. The judge takes into account statements from both sides and enters a judgement. He plead no contest to domestic violence previously, which carries a sentence of up to a year. This plea bargain sought to keep him out of prison. He originally plead no contest to domestic battery. He took a deal to avoid jail time then and got 12 months probation instead of jail (which he should have gotten then IMO). Maybe it's just my opinion, but I think if you do the crime that you should be guaranteed doing the time. In this case, he ultimately ends up with a little slap on the wrist for hitting a woman. Pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. this is not about domestic violence and the ramnifications of johnson's role in it. i agree that domestic violence is a terrible offense , but in this case, he is NOT being sent to jail for that, he is being sent because a judge has an ego.
NoSaint Posted June 11, 2013 Posted June 11, 2013 As I said before, I significantly disagree. He could have gotten up to a 1 year sentence and he got 30 days when CJ's attorney was asking for 0. She didn't split the difference or give him the maximum. People have gotten 30 days in jail for flipping off a police officer. That's over reaching. His penalty was NOT because of the butt slap, but for probation violation on a domestic violence case involving his then wife. Like many, you're just not understanding what the penalty was for and trying to attribute one to the other. simply asked: Why wasnt she discussing how lucky he was to get 30 days at the time, if the tap isnt what earned it for him?
Luxy312 Posted June 11, 2013 Posted June 11, 2013 simply asked: Why wasnt she discussing how lucky he was to get 30 days at the time, if the tap isnt what earned it for him? Simply put, she doesn't have the authority to put him in jail for the tap or courtroom disruption. She had the authority to put him in jail for violating probation and could have done so to the tune of a year. He got a month. End of story. Should have gotten time for the original crime anyway (domestic violence). You're assuming that one thing is 100% related to the other. Media tells you that's what he got time for, and you just eat it up like candy. I've seen a judge add time to a sentence after an initial sentence is given for someone flipping them off. Stupidity is not an excuse and part of that I would put on his attorney. A courtroom is not a playground. Once a sentence is passed down, there's nothing else a judge usually says, so I'm not really surprised from a procedural perspective.
NoSaint Posted June 11, 2013 Posted June 11, 2013 Simply put, she doesn't have the authority to put him in jail for the tap or courtroom disruption. She had the authority to put him in jail for violating probation and could have done so to the tune of a year. He got a month. End of story. Should have gotten time for the original crime anyway (domestic violence). You're assuming that one thing is 100% related to the other. Media tells you that's what he got time for, and you just eat it up like candy. I've seen a judge add time to a sentence after an initial sentence is given for someone flipping them off. Stupidity is not an excuse and part of that I would put on his attorney. A courtroom is not a playground. Once a sentence is passed down, there's nothing else a judge usually says, so I'm not really surprised from a procedural perspective. i dont think its even worth the two of us getting into this. On essentially every assertion you make, besides that i likewise would not have done what chad did, i think we can chalk it up as agree to disagree, and leave the insults behind.
maddenboy Posted June 11, 2013 Posted June 11, 2013 (edited) Former California prosecutor here. For the years I prosecuted, I hated for a judge to give somebody 30 days. 30 days or fewer is known as "book and release." You go into the back room with handcuffs, you get printed and sit in a holding cell for a couple hours, and you are released that night. Jail overcrowding and such. And the judge did not have authority to order the Sheriff to actually keep him in jail for the full 30 days, or any fraction thereof (although a few have tried, and tried to make me/us enforce it). Judges would give "30" days only as a wake up call. Its not real jail. And anything over 30 might still be book and release. Sometimes the judge would call sidebar and ask me whether 40 days was currently "book and release" thinking I had a hotline to the Sheriff's current policy, which I did not. And with PC 4019 credits (time off for "good behavior" http://codes.lp.find...N/3/3/4/1/s4019) anything over 30 days was usually cut in half (even though 4019(f) says 1/3), minus thirty. So a 45 day sentence was (45-30 = 15. 15/2 = 7. So he's gonna do, at most, 7 days on a 45 day sentence). So if she had wanted him to spend an actual 30 calendar days in an actual jail, she would have sentenced him to around 90. (depending on the county and the current state of overcrowding. In Eureka county, 30 might be 30. In LA or San Diego or SF or Riverside, 30 is pretty much "book and release" and everybody knows it). So calm down, people. She's trying to get his attention, as she should. Its easier for him to spend 5-6 hours in a holding tank than to do 25 hours of community service. That's why I hated it. Edited June 11, 2013 by maddenboy
NoSaint Posted June 11, 2013 Posted June 11, 2013 Former California prosecutor here. For the years I prosecuted, I hated for a judge to give somebody 30 days. 30 days or fewer is known as "book and release." You go into the back room with handcuffs, you get printed and sit in a holding cell for a couple hours, and you are released that night. Jail overcrowding and such. And the judge did not have authority to order the Sheriff to actually keep him in jail for the full 30 days, or any fraction thereof (although a few have tried, and tried to make me/us enforce it). Judges would give "30" days only as a wake up call. Its not real jail. And anything over 30 might still be book and release. Sometimes the judge would call sidebar and ask me whether 40 days was currently "book and release" thinking I had a hotline to the Sheriff's current policy, which I did not. And with PC 4019 credits (time off for "good behavior" http://codes.lp.find...N/3/3/4/1/s4019) anything over 30 days was usually cut in half (even though 4019(f) says 1/3), minus thirty. So a 45 day sentence was (45-30 = 15. 15/2 = 7. So he's gonna do, at most, 7 days on a 45 day sentence). So if she had wanted him to spend an actual 30 calendar days in an actual jail, she would have sentenced him to around 90. (depending on the county and the current state of overcrowding. In Eureka county, 30 might be 30. In LA or San Diego or SF or Riverside, 30 is pretty much "book and release" and everybody knows it). So calm down, people. She's trying to get his attention, as she should. Its easier for him to spend 5-6 hours in a holding tank than to do 25 hours of community service. That's why I hated it. and frankly, youve hit on about a dozen other problems with the system all in one post, but to come full circle its why i said in my first posts on this that hopefully it ends up being a simple overnight.... but if thats what a judge is giving, you really should be able to give it from the get go with out all the show, and "everyone knows its a joke"
JohnC Posted June 11, 2013 Posted June 11, 2013 Former California prosecutor here. For the years I prosecuted, I hated for a judge to give somebody 30 days. 30 days or fewer is known as "book and release." You go into the back room with handcuffs, you get printed and sit in a holding cell for a couple hours, and you are released that night. Jail overcrowding and such. And the judge did not have authority to order the Sheriff to actually keep him in jail for the full 30 days, or any fraction thereof (although a few have tried, and tried to make me/us enforce it). Judges would give "30" days only as a wake up call. Its not real jail. And anything over 30 might still be book and release. Sometimes the judge would call sidebar and ask me whether 40 days was currently "book and release" thinking I had a hotline to the Sheriff's current policy, which I did not. And with PC 4019 credits (time off for "good behavior" http://codes.lp.find...N/3/3/4/1/s4019) anything over 30 days was usually cut in half (even though 4019(f) says 1/3), minus thirty. So a 45 day sentence was (45-30 = 15. 15/2 = 7. So he's gonna do, at most, 7 days on a 45 day sentence). So if she had wanted him to spend an actual 30 calendar days in an actual jail, she would have sentenced him to around 90. (depending on the county and the current state of overcrowding. In Eureka county, 30 might be 30. In LA or San Diego or SF or Riverside, 30 is pretty much "book and release" and everybody knows it). So calm down, people. She's trying to get his attention, as she should. Its easier for him to spend 5-6 hours in a holding tank than to do 25 hours of community service. That's why I hated it. I'm not sure that the California penal system situation is similar to the Florida penal system situation. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the California penal system under a court order (not sure if it is state or federal) in regards to the prison crowding problem?
San Jose Bills Fan Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 No. I usually agree w/you and against WEO. In this case, WEO is right... IMO :-O A public defender wouldn't have never bee sniffing freedom for Ocho Stinko. Paying for a hired gun got him the plea and off doing time. Clown act null and voided that pull. Well you can't be right all the time. When you show up to a courtroom with the intent of making a plea bargain, you don't act "playful". It's disrespectful to the judge and just shows that CJ thought he was above it all. Let's be fair here too. There was no deal accepted and then somehow taken away. His attorney was requesting the plea deal from the judge that would have kept him out of jail. He got 30 days, but could have gotten as many as a YEAR. I would say if anything, that he was lucky she didn't throw the book at him. Her anger and comments may have been an overreaction, but her sentence clearly was not. Again I don't think he was being playful. More than likely this is the way Chad always acts. And he could have politely said "yes". Instead he butt slaps his attorney. Not appropriate behavior for the courtroom. It doesn't matter what the judge asks you. You don't treat it like a game. His fault. I think it's obvious that he wasn't treating it like a game. Chad doesn't know what appropriate behavior is and apparently the judge hasn't met anyone like Chad before. While it's true that the plea bargain was worked out between the attorneys, it always needs to be approved by the judge. That's the point here. Attorneys are merely advocates and nothing more. The judge takes into account statements from both sides and enters a judgement. He plead no contest to domestic violence previously, which carries a sentence of up to a year. This plea bargain sought to keep him out of prison. He originally plead no contest to domestic battery. He took a deal to avoid jail time then and got 12 months probation instead of jail (which he should have gotten then IMO). Maybe it's just my opinion, but I think if you do the crime that you should be guaranteed doing the time. In this case, he ultimately ends up with a little slap on the wrist for hitting a woman. Pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. You're letting your feelings about the big picture color your perception of this little picture which is the discussion of how the judge reacted to Johnson's behavior. The people who are saying the judge overreacted are not making any value judgements about Johnson's guilt or innocence, or how much time he should serve. They're saying that the judge overreacted.
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 (edited) And when is Chad gonna finally learn how to act in a courtroom? Letting him off the hook? He is not a 4 year old. Who's going teach him that butt slapping your attorney is a no-no? Who butt slaps anybody outside of a football field? I really do feel for him if he is this ignorant. This really isn't about the judge's ego or power trip. She is the last line of defense for this guy ever getting a clue. Edited June 12, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois
Bufcomments Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 I don't disagree with you that she interpreted CJ's slap and resulting laughter as a sign of disrespect toward her and the court. I don't disagree with you that she interpreted his behavior as a lack of seriousness on the defendant's part. However, after watching the clip I am convinced that he didn't act or intend to act in a frivolous way. When the judge told him that he should be thankful that his attorney worked out a deal very favorable to him he then responded with his discreet backslap.He intended to show his attorney that he appreciated his efforts. In his way he was acknowledging the point that the judge made in stating that his attorney did a good job on his behalf. Chad is a fool. No one is disputing that. He wouldn't be appearing in this court if that wasn't the case. But in my view the judge overreacted and over-interpreted a gesture that he in no way intended to be disrespectful and frivolous. In my view she should have admonished the bailiff and those in the courtroom for their lack of decorum instead of acting out of irritation. As I stated in prior posts if the judge decided to send CJ to jail I would not question her judgment. But to send him to jail after she agreed to a plea deal because of his backside slap was in my opinion unfair. Chad Johnson is an unsophisticated dope. He and his attorney went to court with an expectation that the prearranged plea deal would be enacted. Although his dress was not very formal (suit and tie) he wasn't dressed inappropriately. He was in a lower Florida court where his neat and casual attire is considered to be very acceptable. This was supposed to be a very quick and routine proceeding. Much to his surprise he got entagled with a tempermental judge. True he may have not done it in a disrespectful way but who slaps anybody's butt outside the field of play??? Why do anything in court abnormal?? And I have never ,ever seen ANYBODY slap a lawyers ass in court. It was showboating. IMO chad got what he deserved. Again Chad's actions cost him. Anybody with any sort of common sense would not do that in a court of Law. Ill go back to my Lawyer friend statements. Always dress for success . It can't hurt.
transient Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 Yeah....I watched the clip. It includes footage an a-hole shooting himself in the foot and grabbing a 30 day stretch. IMO, that video also shows a judge working herself up to the level of indignation needed to reject that plea deal. Johnson is an idiot, and nothing is going to change that. Prisons are overcrowded and expensive, and the judge's reaction to this is not what you should expect from a person in her position. If she wanted to make a point, she could have fined the hell out of him. You could argue that it wouldn't mean a thing to Johnson, and you would likely be right, but it would gain the courtroom's attention, save face for the judge if that was really what was needed, and been in the best interest of the county. Instead she looks petty and vindictive, and manages to put a butt slapping buffoon away for 30 days at a cost to the taxpayers.
Mr. WEO Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 Instead she looks petty and vindictive, and manages to put a butt slapping buffoon parole violating woman beater away for 30 days at a cost to the taxpayers. Hey, I fixed that for you. Seemed like you didn't understand why he was in court in the first place.
26CornerBlitz Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 Hey, I fixed that for you. Seemed like you didn't understand why he was in court in the first place. Are the original charges related to the incident with the violently crazy reality star b*tch that CJ was supposed to get married to?
transient Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 (edited) Hey, I fixed that for you. Seemed like you didn't understand why he was in court in the first place. She had just essentially let the parole violating woman beater go. Seems like you don't understand what got him the extra 30 days. Edited June 12, 2013 by transient
Mr. WEO Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 Are the original charges related to the incident with the violently crazy reality star b*tch that CJ was supposed to get married to? Yeah, it was his wife's fault. She had just essentially let the parole violating woman beater go. Seems like you don't understand what got him the extra 30 days. No, the state ("the People") gave him the deal. Then she took it away.
NoSaint Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 No, the state ("the People") gave him the deal. Then she took it away. Lets not pretend she wasnt in the process of accepting the deal when this happened. its not like she entered the room with the intention of rejecting the plea. she had literally just said "you owe your attorney a thank you for getting this" which prompted the "thank you slap" and she in turn changed her mind. i dont think she reflected on the parole violation and happened to decide it was bad enough that he must go to jail in that brief moment.
transient Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 No, the state ("the People") gave him the deal. Then she took it away. A deal for the wife beating parole violator that every indication was that she was in the process of signing off on, and would have were it not for the butt slapping buffoon, correct? I doubt she would have been complimenting the wife beating parole violator's attorney on a job well done if she didn't intend on approving the deal before the butt slapping buffoon stepped in and wrecked it. The point being, it was the butt slapping that she was reacting to, and you know it. Arguing anything else is disingenuous.
NoSaint Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 (edited) A deal for the wife beating parole violator that every indication was that she was in the process of signing off on, and would have were it not for the butt slapping buffoon, correct? I doubt she would have been complimenting the wife beating parole violator's attorney on a job well done if she didn't intend on approving the deal before the butt slapping buffoon stepped in and wrecked it. The point being, it was the butt slapping that she was reacting to, and you know it. Arguing anything else is disingenuous. And Floridas attorney general agrees the judge went too far http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/06/12/florida-a-g-says-chad-johnson-judge-overreacted/ Edited June 12, 2013 by NoSaint
San Jose Bills Fan Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 (edited) Seemed like you didn't understand why he was in court in the first place. The judge overreacted regardless of the charges that were brought against him. But you like several others can't separate their negative feelings towards Johnson when viewing the butt slapping and the ensuing reaction by the judge. And Floridas attorney general agrees the judge went too far http://profootballta...ge-overreacted/ The top law enforcement officer in The State of Florida agrees that the judge overreacted. Her statement is almost verbatim of what several of us have been saying here. Also virtually every legal opinion about this occurrence agrees that the judge overreacted: “Although we never condone domestic violence, this event seems to question judicial temperament, not the subject matter before the court,” Bondi said. Many believe Johnson is behind bars for domestic violence. He’s not. He was thrown in the hoosegow specifically for the quick smack to the rear end of his lawyer, after Judge McHugh told Johnson he should be grateful for the lawyer’s efforts. Without the smack in the butt, Johnson would be free. While the dissenters in this thread will continue to disagree, It's pretty clear whose opinions are more correct here. Edited June 13, 2013 by San Jose Bills Fan
JohnC Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 (edited) No, the state ("the People") gave him the deal. Then she took it away. Of course the judge represents the government/people. That is obvious to everyone. She, acting within her authority, had signed the plea deal. That is how it is done. The paperwork is worked out prior to the court session. She either signed it at the proceeding or before it. What is indisputable is that the paperwork was already signed by her. She then rescinded the deal she already signed because she petulantly reacted to an innocuous backside tap She erroneously interpreted his discreet backslap as an act of disrespect toward her and the court when it wasn't meant to be that. This tempermental judge overreacted and demonstrated that she lacks good judgment and a judicial temperment. It is not surprising that the prevailing view from the legal community is that this diva judge exhibited poor judgment in this case. Edited June 13, 2013 by JohnC
Recommended Posts