JAABLOG'S ONCE UPON A TIME
So unpleasant you'd rather do three days in jail?
JUDGE TYSON vs. RAY SANDSTROM
On February 6, 1974, while representing a client, appellant Ray Sandstom (Fred Haddad's friend and former partner) appeared in open court before The Honorable Robert W. Tyson, Jr., Circuit Judge, without a necktie. The judge thereupon admonished appellant that, unless they had some excuse for not doing so, all attorneys should wear a tie when appearing in court and he ordered appellant thereafter to wear a tie in court. Appellant responded: ‘No, sir. I am saying right now I shall not. I shall dress my mode of dress, not the dictations of the Court.’
On March 12, 1974, appellant appeared once again in open court before the same judge, representing two defendants in a criminal case. He wore a white suit, a sport shirt open at the neck, and a necklace with a round gold pendant the size of a silver dollar ‘with the hair on his chest showing through the open shirt.’ Upon convening court the judge called appellant's attention to his order of February 6, 1974, and advised appellant that he was in violation thereof. After lecturing appellant on the necessity of cooperation by counsel and of decorum in the courtroom, Judge Tyson advised appellant once again that he must wear a tie in the courtroom, and that until he decided to comply with the order that he was to wear a tie, he was barred from practicing in any proceeding before Judge Tyson. The pending criminal case was then continued for one hour to afford appellant an opportunity to comply with the order relative to court attire for attorneys. The judge warned the appellant that if he returned to court without a tie, he would be held in contempt. Appellant remained intransigent. He dictated a lengthy response into the record and filed a motion to have Judge Tyson disqualify himself. Said motion was denied.
When court reconvened, the criminal case was called and appellant stepped forward to represent his clients. Judge Tyson noted that appellant was dressed exactly as he had been prior to the continuance. After appellant agreed that there was no necessity for the court to reiterate the grounds previously detailed, Judge Tyson found appellant guilty of direct criminal contempt for disobeying his order and sentenced appellant to three days in the county jail.
‘The law of contempt is not made for the protection of judges who may be sensitive ot the winds of public opinion. Judges are supposed to be men of fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate. ‘Trial courts . . . must be on guard against confusing offenses to their sensibilities with obstruction to the administration of justice.'' In Re Little, 404 US 553 (1972)
DON'T FORGET YOUR TIE
The Fourth DCA:
"The wearing of a coat and necktie in open court has been a long honored tradition. It has always been considered a contribution to the seriousness and solemnity of the occasion and the proceedings. It is a sign of respect. A ‘jacket and tie’ are still required dress in many public places. The Supreme Court of the United States by ‘Notice to Counsel’ advises that appropriate dress in appearing before that court is conservative business dress. Would anyone question that includes a coat and necktie?
In our judgment the court's order requiring appellant to wear a tie in court was a simple requirement bearing a reasonable relationship to the proper administration of justice in that court. Appellant's dogged refusal to comply demonstrated a total lack of cooperation by counsel and was hardly befitting a member of the bar."
The Fourth DCA AFFIRMED.
The Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari and heard arguments of the parties. After further consideration of the matter, they determined the Court was without jurisdiction. Therefore, the writ of certiorari was DISCHARGED, but not without two interesting dissenting opinions.
Justice England:
"There are those who will fear that small incursions on the formality of courtroom attire might lead to an erosion of our ability to perform important public work, and in time contribute to a wholly unacceptable courtroom atmosphere. This case does not in fact present an incremental change, let alone one which would inevitably lead to that situation. It is not unusual in the contemporary governmental world for men of high purpose to go about their affairs without a necktie, and it can pose no threat to our judicial system to permit attorneys freedom to adopt the reasonable clothing styles of the time. I reject any inference that respect for the judicial system is dependent upon male attorneys wearing neckties. Surely the dignity of the judiciary rests on more substantial ground."
Justice Boyd:
The Fourth DCA AFFIRMED.
The Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari and heard arguments of the parties. After further consideration of the matter, they determined the Court was without jurisdiction. Therefore, the writ of certiorari was DISCHARGED, but not without two interesting dissenting opinions.
Justice England:
"There are those who will fear that small incursions on the formality of courtroom attire might lead to an erosion of our ability to perform important public work, and in time contribute to a wholly unacceptable courtroom atmosphere. This case does not in fact present an incremental change, let alone one which would inevitably lead to that situation. It is not unusual in the contemporary governmental world for men of high purpose to go about their affairs without a necktie, and it can pose no threat to our judicial system to permit attorneys freedom to adopt the reasonable clothing styles of the time. I reject any inference that respect for the judicial system is dependent upon male attorneys wearing neckties. Surely the dignity of the judiciary rests on more substantial ground."
Justice Boyd:
"Prior to the second World War both male and female attorneys were expected to wear dark, conservative clothing when appearing in Court, with men usually attired in white shirts and dark ties. During the War the need for women in military service and in defense plants caused a general relaxation of dress codes among women, and the men, including President Harry Truman, began wearing sport shirts in public places. The dress codes for the past thirty years have been so relaxed that it is often difficult to discern whether a person is a man or a woman, especially with the long hair worn by many men. It is common practice for attorneys to appear in courts with bright colored clothing and to demonstrate a relaxed attitude which would have been shocking to courts forty years ago.
For more than twenty-five years men have appeared in public wearing string ties with medal ornaments identical to that worn by petitioner in his court appearances. It is common knowledge that petitioner has appeared in both Federal and State courts on countless occasions dressed in the same kind of tie worn by him on the occasions in which he was cited for contempt. Other judges, including the Supreme Court of Florida, have not been offended by the wearing of the tie and I am totally unable to understand why the wearing of a string tie should offend the trial judges on the occasions resulting in these charges of contempt.
It is interesting to observe that the female Assistant Attorney General who appeared before this Court against petitioner was wearing an attractive coat, shirt and tie which would have been considered extremely unorthodox forty years ago. Apparently if the male petitioner in this instance had been wearing the same coat, shirt and tie worn by the female Assistant Attorney General the trial courts would not have cited him for contempt. The irony of the situation is further illustrated by the fact that if petitioner should become a judge and should determine it proper for all male attorneys to wear string ties when appearing before him, he might well cite all non-conforming members of the Bar for contempt. If trial judges can require attorneys to wear ties preferred by said judges then those who wear bow ties may require the wearing of bow ties and those who wear blue ties may be offended by those who wear red ties.
Specifically, it is my opinion that judges are not permitted by the Federal or State Constitutions, statutes or rules of court, to hold an attorney in contempt for wearing any type of clothing in courtrooms so long as such clothing does not interfere with the proper administration of justice or demonstrate disrespect for the court or judicial proceedings."
‘The law of contempt is not made for the protection of judges who may be sensitive ot the winds of public opinion. Judges are supposed to be men of fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate. ‘Trial courts . . . must be on guard against confusing offenses to their sensibilities with obstruction to the administration of justice.'' In Re Little, 404 US 553 (1972)
DON'T FORGET YOUR TIE
You have to be Joking??? This is what the Judges and Lawyers are doing with the Tax Payer's Money!..??? OMG!!!!!!!!!!!
This is Disgusting that Judges and Lawyers, who are paid huge salaries to be Intellingent to the causes of the public, are acting like children, fighting over what to wear in court, like a High Maintenance Woman! I will say it again...OMG!!!!(for those of you that are not Literate to the internet terms, OMG, stands for Oh My Gawd!) Do your jobs you are paid such Huge amounts of money for by the public, and stop acting like children! The Judicial System is just plain a Huge mess and such a Huge Laughable Country Club these days, when there are peoples lives at stake, and their freedom, and did anybody mention, uhhh...Justice for All! Man oh Man, get some Integrity, this si just despicable that the public has Judges and Lawyers that think all this is funny and proper! It makes all of us out here just plain sick to our stomachs the way you all act! Well, at least he wasn't toking on a joint like the Broward Judge was, in the park! Talk about Integrity! Disgusting, all of you!
the date di*ck head!
'I reject any inference that respect for the judicial system is dependent upon male attorneys wearing neckties. Surely the dignity of the judiciary rests on more substantial ground.'
Couldn't agree more, if a judge is so insecure as to need to throw his weight around on every tiny aspect of courtroom behaviour, including non-disruptive ones, then that Judge really needs to take a long, hard look at his or her own reason for being a Judge, is it to uphold the law, or to simply get some pleasure out of 'lording it' over those in the courtroom.
those damn hippies ruined everything
Haadad STILL not wearing a neck tie!
Perfect example of a lawyer standing his ground.
Unlike Conway -
Good thing this wasn't Conway - he would have walked outside the courtroom boasting how its time for change, declaring his intention to stand for change and, right when court is called back into session, he would have caved like a ... (please insert)
michael ''perfidy'' hamaway insists that the devil JAY SPECHLER, made him do it.
Conway will say he didnt want to settle.
to you have to be joking, did you forget about our public defender, finkelstein, the same person that smashed into the back of a police cruiser's car high as can be, with dealer's amounts of drugs? Oh, broward, we must also include howard with the judges.
I always wear my Chanel suits to court. It's ssoooo important to make a good impression.
bringing up Conway?
I wondered when the Rat-Boy / Fat-Boy Jealousy Express would make an appearance