(Image
via
iStock)
It’s
taken
14
months,
but
the
Ninth
Circuit
can
now
finally,
formally
declare
that
federal
judges
can’t
seize
children
sitting
quietly
in
the
courtroom
and
have
them
forcibly
handcuffed
to
the
jury
box.
Psychologically
torturing
a
crying
girl
is
bad?
Wow.
Truly
a
very
thorny
and
difficult
moral
and
ethical
question
deserving
over
a
year
to
hash
out.
And
the
punishment
for
the
judge
is…
nothing!
Huzzah
for
the
federal
judiciary!
In
February
2023,
Judge
Roger
Benitez
presided
over
a
revocation
hearing
of
a
man
hoping
to
serve
a
10-month
sentence
with
no
supervised
release
so
he
could
move
out
of
San
Diego
and
get
away
from
the
toxic
environment
and
provide
a
better
life
for
his
young
daughter.
Upon
hearing
about
the
man’s
daughter,
the
judge
hauled
her
out
of
the
gallery,
had
the
marshal
handcuff
her
to
the
jury
box.
The
judge
left
her
there
while
she
cried,
exacting
a
mental
toll
upon
both
the
child
and
the
father.
In
fact,
Judge
Benitez
admitted
that
he
hoped
to
inflict
stress
upon
both
describing
his
behavior
to
the
Ninth
Circuit
as
an
effort
to
“solve
two
equations
with
two
variables….”
After
he
finally
ordered
the
cuffs
removed:
But
he
did
not
allow
her
to
immediately
return
to
her
seat.
Instead
he
told
her,
“don’t
go
away.
Look
at
me.”
He
asked
her
how
she
liked
“sitting
up
there”
and
“the
way
those
cuffs
felt
on
you.”
Still
in
tears,
she
responded
that
she
“didn’t
like
it.”
He
told
her
she
was
“an
awfully
cute
young
lady”
but
that
if
she
didn’t
stay
away
from
drugs,
she
would
“wind
up
in
cuffs”
and
be
“right
back
there
where
I
put
you
a
minute
ago.”
Utterly
unhinged.
Judge
Benitez
defended
his
actions
as
a
sort
of
ad
hoc
Scared
Straight
program.
Given
the
damage
these
actions
cause
to
the
credibility
of
the
justice
system,
the
courts
have
to
send
a
strong
signal
that
this
cannot
be
tolerated.
And
yet….
Indeed,
this
whole
affair
may
not
have
come
to
light
had
it
not
been
for
some
heroic
Above
the
Law
tipsters.
The
Ninth
Circuit
only
announced
that
it
had
begun
an
inquiry
into
the
Benitez
incident
in
response
to
our
coverage.
As
the
final
order
notes:
There
was
significant
publicity
and
media
coverage
about
these
incidents.
The
initial
article
highlighting
the
Puente
Hearing
was
published
on
the
Above
the
Law
blog,
soon
followed
by
articles
in
the
San
Diego
Union-Tribune,
the
Los
Angeles
Times,
and
other
media
outlets.
So
what
has
the
Ninth
Circuit
done
to
protect
the
sanctity
of
its
member
courts?
It’s
not
exactly
nothing
as
described
above.
He
receives
a
public
reprimand
and
will
not
be
allowed
to
hear
criminal
cases
for
three
years.
EXCEPT….
Because
the
Judicial
Council
has
been
informed
that,
upon
assumption
of
senior
status
pursuant
to
28
U.S.C.
§
294(b),
Judge
Benitez,
with
the
approval
of
the
Chief
District
Judge
of
the
Southern
District
of
California,
elected
not
to
be
assigned
new
criminal
cases,
the
Judicial
Council
approves
and
confirms
this
arrangement
pursuant
to
28
U.S.C.
§
294(c)
by
limiting
Judge
Benitez’s
designation
of
approved
judicial
duties
as
to
newly-assigned
cases
to
non-criminal
civil
matters
for
three
years.
He
already
wasn’t
hearing
criminal
cases!
His
punishment
was
to
officially
bless
his
personal
desires.
Must
be
rough.
The
decision
also
allows
parties
to
seek
recusal
in
any
probationary
or
sentencing
matter
that
he
happens
to
get…
another
action
that
he’d
already
asked
for.
Of
course
Benitez
never
wanted
to
hear
criminal
cases
while
enjoying
senior
status.
The
criminal
docket
gets
in
the
way
of
the
work
that
actually
keeps
him
on
the
federal
bench:
helping
deep
pocketed
gun
lobbyists
lay
the
groundwork
for
more
school
shootings.
But
let’s
not
be
too
hard
on
the
content
of
the
Ninth
Circuit’s
decision.
Federal
courts
can’t
actually
do
much
to
discipline
their
colleagues.
Unless
it’s
the
Federal
Circuit,
which
has
decided
it
has
the
authority
to
pocket
impeach
a
sitting
judge
based
on
their
own
deep
medical
expertise
to
second-guess
the
director
of
medical
student
education
at
GWU
Medical
School.
But
most
federal
courts
refrain
from
such
power
grabs,
even
when
the
stakes
are
more
serious
and
a
solid
evidentiary
record
actually
exists.
Allegations
against
Alex
Kozinski
bounced
around
the
federal
judiciary
for
years
with
no
action.
And
if
mere
embarrassment
is
too
much,
investigations
of
egregious
harassment
or
involvement
in
systemic
tax
fraud
simply
evaporate
when
those
judges
voluntarily
walk
off
the
job.
And
that’s
before
we
even
get
to
the
lawlessness
of
the
United
States
Supreme
Court,
an
entity
that
refuses
to
abide
by
even
the
relatively
toothless
rules
imposed
upon
other
federal
judges.
When
public
pressure
on
the
Court’s
damning
ethical
lapses
got
too
hot,
it
announced
a
new
ethics
code
to
much
fanfare…
and
started
openly
violating
it
within
weeks.
But
this
powerlessness
makes
the
14-month
delay
all
the
more
galling.
If
a
court
can’t
put
teeth
into
a
punishment,
it
becomes
all
the
more
essential
that
it
act
with
alacrity.
The
speed
of
the
condemnation
becomes
the
only
lever
the
judiciary
can
pull
to
protect
itself
from
the
damage
a
rogue
judge
can
cause.
Reuters
reports
that,
in
a
statement,
Benitez
responded,
“I
respectfully
disagree.”
Well,
at
least
he’s
learned
absolutely
nothing
from
the
whole
affair.
Maybe
the
Ninth
Circuit
should
consider
cuffing
him
to
a
jury
box?
(Full
opinion
on
the
next
page…)
Panel
reprimands
California
federal
judge
for
cuffing
13-year-old
girl
[Reuters]
Earlier:
Federal
Judge
Handcuffs
Crying
13-Year-Old
Girl
Attending
Father’s
Hearing
Formal
Complaint
Lodged
Against
Federal
Judge
For
Handcuffing
Crying
13-Year-Old
Girl
6
Months
Later,
Still
No
Discipline
For
Federal
Judge
Who
Handcuffed
Crying
13-Year-Old
Girl
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.