Judge Orders Whites Out Of Atlanta Court

[Mugu]

wsbtv.com

ATLANTA -- Judge Marvin Arrington insists he's not a racist; despite ordering white lawyers out of his courtroom on Thursday.

The Fulton County Superior Court judge said he was just fed up seeing a parade of young black defendants in his courtroom.

"I came out and saw the defendants, about 99.9 percent Afro-Americans, and some point time I excused some of the lawyers, most of them white, and said to the young people in here 'What in the world are you doing with your lives,'" he told WSB-TV Channel 2 reporter JaQuitta Williams.

Arrington said he thought his message might have more power if it was delivered to a blacks-only audience.


Complete article at:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/15735848/detail.html

[slackmaster]

1. I don't see anything wrong in the judge's actions

I admire him for taking a creative approach to the situation.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

4. Hmm kicking people out of a public courtroom because of their race

is creative?

[slackmaster]

5. As long as he didn't base a judicial decision on race and it was just temporary

He did it to make a point with the defendants.

[mondo joe]

14. He's already established that he's motivated by race. His decisions are now suspect.

Very inappropriate.

[slackmaster]

16. Judges have a lot of leeway to do things most people couldn't, and get away with it

I've been in a few courtrooms. Judges sometimes exercise arbitary and harsh power as a way of getting the attention of someone, be it a lawyer, defendant, juror, or person in the audience.

I watched a traffic court judge sentence a defendant to 100 days in jail for contempt of court for mouthing off and trying to trivialize the proceedings. The other defendants were perfectly quiet and polite after that.

They do things like that for shock value. It works.

[treestar]

27. They have no right but to decide the law

They may not exercise arbitrary power. If they do so, they abuse their position.

[selador]

46. but...

race IS special.

it's that way in the law (you can discriminate for MANY reasons - but NOT race) for a reason.

shock value aside, it's wrong wrong wrong.

[Hannah Bell]

40. Yeah, right. Inappropriate. Racism. That's the ticket. n/t

[Better Believe It]

95. So?

Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and every Black leader worthy of that designation have been motivated by race.

What the hell is wrong with that? It is the Black population and other minorities that have been oppressed and discrimination against by the white minority. Don't give me that "racism in reverse" b.s.

[mondo joe]

96. Why are you conflating private citizens with a judge in office acting on behalf of government?

No judge should show anything but impartiality in the court room, particularly as regards protected classes.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

23. Horse Crap...

If a white judge had kicked out a black lawyer so he could have a white only audiance this place would, rightfully, be insane with anger..

[slackmaster]

76. I have no doubt that much of DU would be gathering torches and pitchforks if that happened

But I would not be among them unless the judge did something illegal.

I would feel the same way if a female judged temporarily expelled all males from an arraignment for girls.

[Warpy]

18. He kicked them out because of their profession

They were lawyers.

He wanted a wee word alone with their clients.

There was a weasel word in there, "most," as in most of the lawyers who were told to leave for a few minutes were white.

Who knows? This judge might have gotten through to some of the little wankers. More power to him!

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

24. No he kicked them out because they were *white* lawyers

its inexcusable to remove people from a public courtroom because of race..

[Warpy]

43. Watch that weasel word

[treestar]

28. Baloney, they had a right to counsel

White or black. A judge has no right to speak to the clients without their lawyers present. The clients have a right to choose their lawyer, white, black or otherwise.

[Elspeth]

72. EXACTLY: they had a right to counsel

This judge, like so many others for different reasons, just ignored the Constitution. I'm getting sick and tired of it.

[wpelb]

82. What happened while the lawyers were out?

If the judge just lectured the defendants, but didn't discuss their cases with them, or issue any rulings, his actions may be defensible. If, however, he kicked the lawyers out, then made legal rulings, there are serious constitutional matters at stake.

[selador]

45. i'll give him that

it IS creative. never heard it being done before

of course saying something is creative doesn't mean it's not a bigoted, wrongheaded, ridiculous thing to do .

which it was.

[LisaL]

6. You have got to be kidding. What would you say if a judge kicked

out all the black lawyers out of the courtroom?

[slackmaster]

8. You mean for a brief time, so he could rant and rave at some white defendants?

Not a problem.

[LisaL]

11. Pardon me if I don't believe you.

[slackmaster]

12. Take it up with the Moderators if you think I am not telling the truth

Judges have a great deal of leeway in how they conduct business in court.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

29. They DO NOT! They must follow the rules of court.

All are to be treated equally! Where do you get the insane idea that judges can do whatever they want! They must put aside their prejudices and FOLLOW THE LAW!!! All are equal before the law regardless of race, etc.

[slackmaster]

77. Yes, judges do have to follow the law and rules of the court. So please explain...

...What specific law or rule of the court did this judge violate?

[Marr]

21. It's not the same thing.

I understand what you're saying, and frankly I think this was a stupid thing for the judge to do-- but it's not offensive in the way you describe. At least not to me.

Here he is, a successful older man seeing countless young men come through his court, wasting their lives. Apparently he was trying to a sort of... misguided community outreach. As I said, I do think it was stupid, but it's not like a white judge kicking all the blacks out of a court. It just isn't.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

26. Hmm judge of color A kicks out anyone not color A

Seems pretty cut and dry that it *is* the same thing..

If he wanted to give a speech that whites might find offensive with that I take *no* issue... But we gave up segreted courtrooms in this nation and they should stay gone..

[JBoy]

2. Gee, nice of him to give shit to all those defendants.

Set aside any racism concerns, whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

[Mugu]

9. There could also be an issue about a judge speaking to defendants

without counsel present.

Regards, Mugu

[slackmaster]

17. I agree with you about that Mugu

If some defendants had their lawyers present and others didn't, someone might be able to pursue a remedy. There is a process for determining whether or not someone's civil rights have been violated.

[Mugu]

19. I believe that his heart is/was pure,

it's simply an appearance issue.

Regards, Mugu

[slackmaster]

10. Nothing he did qualifies as extrajudicial punishment

Judges are allowed to be dicks.

[treestar]

30. No, they aren't

There are ethical standards for judges too. This is a clear violation.

[chixydix]

38. You seem to have a very strange notion of what judges are and do.

:eyes:

[treestar]

50. So you think they are tyrants? No, they have to follow the law

This guy did not follow the law and there is no procedural or substantive basis for his actions. He is not a teacher. He is a judge. He is allowed to decide only the law!

[chixydix]

60. Would you care to comment on the Lawrence vs. Texas (sodomy) decision?

The "law" was clear...the Supreme Court said the "law" was bullshit. In that particular case they were in MY opinion right. Your mileage may vary.

[treestar]

67. A judge can easily be found to be in error about the law, by a

higher court. So that does not mean he can do whatever he pleases. And he has to live with being overruled by a higher court.

But there is nothing in the procedural law allowing him to lecture defendants. He can sentence them. But not lecture them. That is only an emotional indulgence.

[selador]

48. oh yes they are

i 100% disagree with the judge's decision here, but it IS true they are allowed to be dicks

just not RACIST dicks

how much time have you spent in a courtroom? seriously.

[treestar]

51. They may BE dicks, but the law does not ALLOW them to be

The lawyers are going to take this to the next level and there it will be decided that his actions were wrong.

No, they are not tyrants. They are not dictators. They are bound by the law. If they don't follow it, they can be reversed. And they should be disciplined where they do something this outrageous.

[selador]

54. yes it does

how much do you know of THE LAW (tm)

the law does not prohibit judges from being dicks, nor cops or lawyers for that matter.

you keep referencing THE LAW but fail to REFERENCE ANY LAW that supports your assertion.

i have yet to see any statute or criminal procedure law etc. that says anything that judges can't be dicks.

stop confusing what you WISH were the case, with what IS the case

[treestar]

55. A judge's function is to rule on questions of the law

There is no law to cite. It is basic.

But look at most rules of ethics for judges, and it will all be there. The best of judges know it.

This guy is just a dick, and he ought to be disciplined for failure to keep a judicial demeanor.

[selador]

58. nice dodge

i am well aware of judicial ethics.

but the truth is still there.

the law does not prohibit judges from lecturing, nor from anything as nebulous as " being a dick"

[treestar]

64. The law says they rule on questions of law

End of story. The rest is indulgence.

[selador]

70. again

besides the point.

it may be INDULGENCE

but it isn't PROHIBITED

there is a difference

gawd. talk about sophistry

[Elspeth]

73. The Constitution says the defendants have a right to counsel

By kicking all the lawyers out, regardless of color, the judge was denying the defendants their right to counsel. That's a legal issue.

[slackmaster]

78. Let's all review the Sixth Amendment together

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Now, can someone please explain what part of this says that a judge can't speak to a defendant without counsel present?

I believe this was an arraignment session, not a trial. He wasn't prosecuting anyone, that's not even his job in a trial. He was lecturing them.

I assume that he excluded lawyers without regard to whether they were working for the prosecution or for a defendant.

[Elspeth]

80. It's pretty much implied. If the judge and jury represent the institutional arbiters of guilt

or innocence, then the client/accused must be represented at all times in their presence.

The judge was welcome to say his piece but not to deny representation to the accused.

[slackmaster]

92. Defendants and suspects have a right to counsel when they are being questioned

If they are not being subjected to questioning that could harm their ability to defend themselves, I do not believe the right to counsel applies.

[Elspeth]

98. There is always the possibility of defendants harming their ability to defend themselves

when alone with a judge or jury, hence the protection of counsel.

[slackmaster]

99. They can also harm their ability to defend themselves when they are sitting in jail

Or at home while out on bail, yet they don't always have counsel with them there either.

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

[Elspeth]

101. Not necessarily. They don't deal with any officials without their lawyers.

They might be stupid and say something to a cell mate, but they are far less likely to be intimidated into giving up their rights by a fellow prisoner. They could be far more intimidated into speaking or incriminating themselves in front of a judge, DA, etc.

I would like to see if the attorneys in this case ask for sanctions against the judge or for new hearings for their clients based on the judge not allowing the defendants to have representation for at least part of the hearing.

[chixydix]

61. How sad you younger kids never took Civics 101.

:shrug:
I guess it's not taught any more.

[treestar]

66. You must not know the first thing about the law

A judge cannot just do whatever he/she wants. Granted many indulge themselves, and the lawyers fail to object. But that does not make it right. Where in Civics 101 or even Civics 502 did you learn that judges are tyrants who can do whatever they please? You had a poor teacher.

Judges are judges of the LAW, not of people generally.

[selador]

71. actually both

the perfect example is in sentencing

many judges (and a fair # of liberals, conservatives and libertarians) are against the concept of mandatory sentencing, 3 strike laws etc. that take DISCRETION away from judges for exactly that reason.

judges are EXPECTED to take the human side, the person side during sentencing.

sentencing is actually an EXCELLENT example of why you are wrong

you are really making quite a fool of yourself in this thread. you make these broad, sweeping statements COMPLETELY unsupported by ANY factual cites/case law/const law/crim procedure cites. people keep calling you on it, and you just make more unsubstantiated statements

i strongly suspect you have little familiarity with the law. JUST enough to THINK you know everything, when in fact you know only enough to make you dangerously overconfident.

the greeks had a word for that - sophomore which translates as "wise idiot"

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

3. No excuse for this madness...

[cynatnite]

7. I think his intentions were honorable, but...

I don't approve of kicking lawyers out of a courtroom like that and leaving only minors.

[Mugu]

13. I don't believe for a moment that his intentions were anything but honorable.

He's still going to take some heat.

Regards, Mugu

[napi21]

15. I think the judge did a good thing, and I would love to hear his speech.

It also quotes him in that article {b}"Arrington added that he may make a similar speech next week, but this time he'll allow everyone to hear it."

Maybe I'll get my chance. Honestly, I don't know how much attention any of those young people would pay to any judge, but his actions seem similar to the teacher, parent, priest, or someone of authority who pulls you aside and quietly tears you a new one, instead of yelling at you in front of everyone else.

[murielm99]

20. The article says that there were still some lawyers present.

It looks like he was speaking informally, not handing down a judicial ruling.

I see nothing wrong with this. It seems like he did a good thing, and was speaking from his heart. Who could be better to do this?

Sometimes black defendants are in court because they are more likely to be arrested for driving while black. They are more likely to be arrested when a white kid might be let go with a warning. Don't you think this judge has seen more than his fair share of that? I think I would rather have this African American gentleman presiding over those cases, too. His rulings might be more even-handed.

[treestar]

31. He is wasting taxpayer time

He is there to make rulings of THE LAW. Not to just spout his opinions, even if they are laudable.

[chixydix]

32. Uh, having opinions is what we pay judges to do.

:eyes:

[treestar]

33. Opinions regarding THE LAW, not just his ordinary

garden variety, political opinions.

This judge is a moran. He has no right to do what he did. He did not follow the law of procedure nor the substantive law.

[chixydix]

37. Perhaps you can cite what law he broke...? Or not.

Or are you on the side of the thugs? (That's fine but you probably should say so if it's the case)

[treestar]

44. Easy. In the procedural law, there is no occasion to kick all the

lawyers out of the courtroom. The litigant always has the right to counsel.

The judge has to follow THE LAW. That means the laws of procedure. The lawyer is never kicked out of the courtroom and the lawyers in question should have refused to vacate. They and their clients had the right they be there.

The judge is not permitted to lecture people. The judge is there to listen and rule on objections and rule on THE LAW. Not to be a monarch in the courtroom. Which, by the way, is not his/her courtroom. It is the People's courtroom.

[selador]

49. you take it too far

"The judge is not permitted to lecture people."

most of what you said is true.

the above most certainly is not

[treestar]

52. Just because they often do it does not make it their place

People are too submissive regarding this. The judge's only function is to listen, rule on objections, and make rulings on the legal issues. They have no right to generally lecture the defendant. When they do it, it is an emotional indulgence that many a litigant/lawyer is too cowardly to call them on.

[selador]

53. i didn't say it was their "place". i said they were PERMITTED to

contrary to your claim that they are not PERMITTED to

both in a de jure and de facto sense they are certainly PERMITTED to .

you may argue they have no right to, but that is supported neither by case law nor by practice or any criminal procedure i am aware of ( i realize much varies state to state).

please cite the relevant language in penal code or criminal procedure that PROHIBITS them from lecturing...

[treestar]

57. They are not permitted

And on appeal, that behavior should always be questioned. And furthermore, lawyers and litigants ought to have the balls to report this sort of behavior to the judicial council.

They don't because they will have to be in front of that judge with other clients, etc. But they shouldn't do that. It corrupts the system. They should report that judge and get him kicked off the bench. He has no right to use the bench for personal indulgence.

[selador]

59. exactly. just as i suspected.

you CANNOT cite a law that says they are NOT PERMITTED despite my appeal to you. you made the bogus claim, and you can't back it up

you just keep making assertions without evidence, that run contrary to common practice (i've spent literally hundreds of hours in the courtroom) that i have seen, and law that i have read

you made the claim. either admit you are wrong, or skulk away, OR PROVIDE A CITE THAT PROVES YOUR CLAIM

*if* they are not PERMITTED that can ONLY be true if there is a law that says THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED

im still waiting...

[treestar]

63. You and your colleagues are simply too weak to protest

Or too much a part of the system.

Simply because it is done does not make it right.

This guy should be kicked off the bench. Just because the lawyers and litigants meekly tolerate him does not make him right.

[selador]

69. backpedaling noted

you said it was not PERMITTED

that is NOT the same as saying "it isn't right"

again, why keep backpedaling?

it's so transparent.

[chixydix]

22. He needs to be on the Supreme Court.

:-)

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. Did he conduct any business while whites were excluded?

If no, then I don't think he did anything wrong.

And no, I don't think I'd see it the same way if the shoe were on the other foot.

[Hannah Bell]

41. Which it couldn't be. A white judge, a 300-year history of race-based

politics & economics, 99% white defendants & majority black lawyers?

People who get bent out of shape about this need to find a hobby.

[MaryCeleste]

35. Going to wonder how much longer he will be on the bench with that kind of attitude and behavior

He may be given the option to "turn senior" in lieu of disciplinary action.

The standard is "appearance of impropriety" and this has it all over it.

[madrchsod]

36. it`s his court room

if there is a problem with what he did is up to the the proper committee that over sees juridical conduct.

[wain]

42. My thinking exactly

Others may not like it, but in the end he is the power of the court.

[treestar]

47. It is the State's courtroom!

"My courtroom" is one of my pet peeves. They get that from their teachers. A classroom may belong to a teacher. But a courtroom belongs to THE PEOPLE!!!! Judges should be de-robed for saying that!

[madrchsod]

39. well he`s a rather interesting guy

this is`t first time he`s had some problems....he`s entertaining to say the least...

http://www.thehistorymakers.com/biography/biography.asp?bioindex=1258&category=LawMakers&occupation=Judge&name=Hon.%20Marvin%20S.%20Arrington%2C%20Sr.
The HistoryMakers

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1129898333540
Law.com - Lawyer Cries Foul When Judge Gets His Bat

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-90238187.html
Fort Files Complaint Against Fulton Judge Marvin Arrington - Atlanta Inquirer - HighBeam Research

http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168415
Judge blocks Atlanta sheriff from moving inmates to south Georgia - Prison Talk

[deadmessengers]

56. He's also a former Atlanta City Council president

...and a candidate for Mayor back in '97. I voted for Marvin Arrington when he was running for mayor, and I don't really see too much of an issue with this. From what I get from reading the article, he didn't really discuss any of the cases, he just basically said to the endless stream of black defendants in the courtroom 'will you take a look at yourselves?'

[graycem]

62. Sounds like he was just

giving them a bit of a fatherly admonishing. Maybe he felt he was better in a position to do that because he is a black man himself, and he's tired of watching his race disproportionally wind up in jails and prisons. I say good on him. As long as he didn't conduct official business, how can this be wrong or racist? It wouldn't be racist either if the defendants and judge were all white, and statistics showed more whites on average than blacks going to jail. Someone needs to wake these kids up, and try to help them, geeze.

[timtom]

65. "The law to the letter, M. Valjean! Good, bad, or indifferent."

Inspector Javert
Les Miserables

[uppityperson]

68. "some point time I excused some of the lawyers, most of them white, "

I wish he'd excused ALL the lawyers, irregardless of skin color.

[ulysses]

74. good on him.

I have no problem with it whatsoever. Notice that the real story is his talk with the defendants, not what's in the sensationalist headline.

[B Calm]

75. I have always wanted to say to a judge, who in the hell are you to judge anyone!

[slackmaster]

79. Or "Judge not, lest ye be judged!"

:rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

81. Reverse racism! squawk! Revese racism! squawk!

Funny how sharp white folks' racism-detectors are when it's THEM.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

93. There's no such thing as "reverse racism". There's just racism.

And it doesn't take a very sharp "racism detector"to pick up on "ordering everyone of a given race out of a court of law on account of their race" as being racist...

[Better Believe It]

97. Thank You!

You hit the nail on the head!

[Orsino]

83. Anything you say to me, Your Honor, should be in the presence of my lawyer.

I think he had a good motive in there, somewhere, but he sounds pretty stupid trying to justify it afterward.

[readmoreoften]

105. You hit the nose on the head there.

No doubt. Don't separate folks from their lawyers.

[Dreamer Tatum]

84. What an idiot

Now any defendant in that room that gets convicted has a legitimate argument for appeal, simply because
the judge denied them access to counsel WHILE IN THE COURTROOM.

Moron.

[ulysses]

85. what court business was conducted w/out the lawyers?

[Dreamer Tatum]

86. That's exactly what I'd like to know

...if I was hired to defend someone who was talking to the judge without my presence.

[ulysses]

87. he wasn't alone with them.

Bailiffs, etc. If he convicted any of them while you were out, you'd likely hear about it.

[Turner Ashby]

88. I'm not sure any law was violated, since he didn't talk to anyone

individually. I think that would be required to kick in the right to counsel. While most Judges give a sweeping recitation of rights at first appearance (which is what this sounds like), most will reiterate those rights again, when the case is important such as a DUI, or a felony. I have to say as a white person, who looked out on a sea of black faces day in and day out, I can see where this guy snapped. I used to feel sorry for my black colleagues, how they must have felt. I think he will be reported to the Judicial Qualifications Committee (or whatever it is called) and he will probably be reprimanded, but nothing he did really affects a case constitutionally.

[ulysses]

89. I appreciate him

talking to these kids from the vantage point of a black judge. I keep wondering if any of my old students were in that group. Some could easily have been.

[Unrepentant Fenian]

90. No Lawyers????

Maybe not all the Black people were defendants!

[zonmoy]

91. seems to me that all he did was talk to the defendants without their attorneys

to see if warning them that way might change their path.

[baby_mouse]

106. Yeah, that's not his job. NT

[Ordr]

94. Racist shitbag of a judge.

[BoneDaddy]

100. The apologists and justifiers

are out in numbers this time of the year. I love the smell ofhypocrisy in the morning. Instead of removing the white lawyers, how bout you start demanding some responsible behavior instead of pawning it off on the ever usable scapegoats that provide excuses out there.

[nomorenomore08]

102. I don't see this as such a big deal.

Certainly it's unorthodox, but not illegal as far as I know, and I question how much his dismissal of the lawyers actually had to do with their skin color. I can understand his frustration, not just with the defendants but with their lawyers, at seeing so many young men go to prison for years, perhaps in some cases due in part to inadequate representation, and well, maybe he just snapped.

Like I said, there are far more important things to worry about.

[AZ Criminal JD]

103. What's next, all black courts and all white courts?

[readmoreoften]

104. Hope no light-skinned black folks got manhandled out of the room.

What did he do with Puerto Ricans and Dominicans and Cubans? Oh well.