Former judge pleads guilty to having defendant shocked

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Former judge pleads guilty to having defendant shocked

Jessica Gresko, Associated Press

Updated 7:10 pm, Monday, February 1, 2016

A former Maryland judge pleaded guilty Monday to a civil rights violation for ordering a defendant to be physically shocked in his courtroom.

Robert C. Nalley of La Plata, Maryland, gave the order in July 2014 while presiding over a criminal trial for a man who was representing himself, according to the plea deal's statement of facts.

During jury selection, the defendant, reading from a prepared statement, objected to Nalley's authority to conduct the proceedings. After the man repeatedly ignored Nalley's questions and his commands to stop speaking, Nalley ordered a deputy sheriff to activate a "stun-cuff" the defendant was wearing around his ankle. "Do it. Use it," Nalley said.

The defendant stopped speaking when the deputy sheriff approached him and activated the device, which administered an electric shock for about five seconds. The defendant fell to the ground and screamed and Nalley then recessed the proceedings, according to the plea deal's statement of facts.



Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Former-judge-pleads-guilty-to-having-defendant-6799347.php

---

[center]

[/center]

[rpannier]

1. Guy is a jerk

Stun cuffs now?
Another way for the police to have fun

[cstanleytech]

3. Oh the cuffs themselves make complete sense and I personally have no problem with them

if the persons poses a threat but the problem here wasnt the cuffs themselves the problem here was the judge was an asshole for ordering them to be activated when the guy was simply being a jerk and not an actual threat to anyone.

[rpannier]

4. Understand

Back in the early 90's I knew a woman who was a prison guard, she carried pepper spray. It makes sense
She told us how she routinely sprayed prisoners in their cells because she thought they were too loud or they pissed her off somehow

I have no doubts there are many bailiffs who happily do the same with these little items (cuffs)

[cstanleytech]

5. Not an apt comparison unless they have started to use these cuffs on prisoners in their cells

not to mention you only had her word that is what she did with pepper spray but for all you know she was lying through her teeth about it.

[keylargo]

9. Now whose putting words in other people mouths. Prison guards have a long history

of taking advantage of their position to inflict people in their care with any power trip at their command. Been there and seen it with my own eyes. There are reasons people with certain personality deviations work in fields that cater to those deviations.

[Unknown Beatle]

11. Good point, keylargo.

Welcome to DU. I see you joined in 2014. You must have been a long time lurker.

[keylargo]

12. Hello, Thank You and I like to lurk...

Mostly, by the time I log in everybody else has already made the same points... Like minds as they say!

[Taitertots]

15. It doesn't take a personality deviation. Just look at the Yale prison experiment

Its a tale as old as time because the mechanisms that make men (or women) into monsters is engrained in the nature of humanity.

[cstanleytech]

18. And the tale that is as old as time is that people lie and people exaggerate things.

For example I once caught a huge fish...it must have weighed 100 pounds..............now did I really catch such a large fish or am I exaggerating?

[Taitertots]

14. I'm sure you ran to notify the police of this obviously criminal behavior

[Unknown Beatle]

2. That asshole judge has a Moe haircut.

[Judi Lynn]

7. Hope Moe doesn't hear you've said that.

[center][/center]

[The Second Stone]

6. If the man needed to be in cuffs when conducting his trial

then he was not competent to conduct his own trial. God bless the Hon. Richard Arneson of the Superior Court of Contra Costa County, State of California, who never, ever let a competent defendant appear in Court, or in Chambers, restrained or in jail clothes.

[cstanleytech]

8. Since when did having to be in handcuffs disqualify someone from being allowed to act as

their own attorney?

[The Second Stone]

10. Since you are entitled to defend yourself without being in handcuffs

I can see the possibility of being so unable to control oneself as to require handcuffs, i.e. mentally ill, but in that event, you aren't allowed to defend yourself as you lack capacity.

Being in handcuffs sends the message that the judge has already determined your guilt.

[Thor_MN]

13. Where did you get the impression that handcuffs were involved?

The OP says that a stuncuff (singular) on his ankle (singular) was activated. It says nothing about handcuffs.

Doesn't change the fact that the judge was wrong in ordering it used, but you seem to have drawn some unproven conclusions.

FWIW, I agree with you what you say, but it doesn't seem to be applicable in this instance.

[christx30]

16. Or it could be that during

pretrial, you have shown yourself as rejecting authority and showing a desire to escape (ready to knock someone down and sprint away with no notice). People like that aren't mentally ill. They just don't want to be there any more.
So they would have hand and leg restraints.

[Joe Chi Minh]

17. Why 'for about five seconds ?' One second would surely

be enough as a deterrent. Anyone who was so pig-headed that after that they still continued, really ought not be considered competent even for trial, imo. Even a person in a mentally-deranged condition has a basic instinct for self-preservation and avoidance of horrific, sometimes homicidal pain.

But then judges are drawn from the most characteristically-venal and worldly section of society, so don't necessarily expect an elementary sense of justice from them; just judges and barristers certainly exist, but so do the others, in one degree or another.

Put them in charge of a commercial case, where money is involved, and you may well be reduced to tears of wonder at the profundity and scope of their wisdom. Humanly-oriented cases are just not their thang. Outside the court, you'd be lucky to get the time of day from some of them. In the middle-ages, I believe they were sheriffs and tended to be viscounts, youngest sons of earls. So, presumably, they might have gone home, after a hard day at the office, and demanded their 'right of the first night' with some poor peasants' just-married daughter. But I don't want to promote anarchy. Just saying (as you Yankee Doodle Dandies just say... )

[cstanleytech]

19. More like zero seconds because it was only supposed to be used if he turned violent which he had not

done so the judge was 100% in the wrong to order its usage and he should be removed from the bench and barred from practicing law imo.

[Massacure]

20. One second is not an option

From a quick Google search I did, the Stun-Cuff comes in one of two models. One models delivers a 50,000 volt shock for five seconds, and the other delivers a 80,000 volt shock for three seconds.

[Joe Chi Minh]

21. Then the use of it was itself criminal, and the order given to the

subordinate even more criminal in that context.