Courtroom Advice: don't text or sleep

Sleeping while driving is even better.

This judge is off his rocker if this story is accurate. The lady is texting "omg not so gud hubby so sry =(" and he sentances her to 30 DAYS IN JAIL?? Ok then, we can never ever whine about overcrowding of jails if THIS deserves a jail sentance. How about a warning, or a $50 USD fine? Now we have to feed, dress, and house this woman for 30 days in a room full of rapists, drug dealers, murderers and deranged prisoners? We'll also have to foot the bill for the resulting lawsuit when she gets out. What is this world coming to.

30 days is not long enough, and the woman sleeping in the jury should have to do the time that the defendant would have got. Seriously disrespectful and stupid.

I think the texting was really too harsh.

The texting is just the judge proving he has power, but the other is just the fact that the judge did not ask a question to one juror. We are not allowed to take cell phones into the courthouse where I am from so maybe everybody should do the same. Real criminals get off on a stupid question and real people get persecuted for being a real person.

I'm not a betting man but if I were I would wager that the texting woman had been warned more than once.

Agreed on the texting sentence being too harsh, unless the judge asked specifically that no one use their phones ahead of time in any way for any reason, in which case it was good to charge her with contempt, but wrong to give such a lengthy sentence. Too many people in power are on power trips these days!

Another case of abuse in the judicial system. Seems like prison has become one of this country's fastest growing and most profitable businesses with unlimited potential and an ability to be recession proof. For all the smart asses out there that think people should be given harsher sentences for texting I hope you will experience a stay in the gray bar motel for little more than something minor.Only than will you change your prospective and realize that our freedom IS THE MOST IMPORTANT RIGHT WE HAVE111 It should only be infringed on for a damned good reason!! Many have died for this most precious right and it is disrespectful to take something so precious so lightly!!!!

I've never been in a courtroom that didn't warn folks to turn off all cell phones. There are usually signs on the walls saying that cell phone use will not be tolerated while court is in session. Many judges don't want cell phones turned on even when court isn't in session. If you're in the courtoom at any time, the phones must be turned off. I tend to agree with FastK12, who stated that this woman was no doubt given more than one warning. If this is, indeed, correct, then the 30-day sentence was more than justified. I'm always amazed at the folks who feel they are above the law; that the laws apply to everyone else except for them.

There is not a court room where cell phones are allowed on. Hubby should have been in court himself. However 30 days is extensive, how many times was she warned? Sleeping jurors? What ever happened to fair trial? Good thing there are back up jurors. Where is the contempt charge here. Is there a health condition involoved here?

The judge held her in contempt of court is a joke, he is not god, she not to file a case to the state bar about the judge. He need to be this bar and remove as a judge!!!

Let me get this straight.........the lady who's texting gets jail time & the guy who's DISTRIBUTING COCAINE get's let off the hook??!!?!?!?? Am I the only person who thinks there is something SERIOUSLY WRONG with this situation ?  And you wonder why the rest of the world thinks we're a joke...........

Courtrooms have signs prominently displayed at their entrances stating their Rules with regards to cell phones. Thus, everyone who enters is on notice that all cell phones and pagers must be TURNED OFF. This woman chose to violate those rules. Her sentence for texting during courtroom proceedings was well within the Judge's power - - albeit draconian.

As for the other issue - - the Appellate reversal because a Judge did not question a Juror about whether or not they were sleeping during testimony and even during the Judge's instructions - - we are not given enough facts in this article with which to state an informed opinion.

So, on general principles, we know that sleeping Jurors are not good Jurors because they can miss critical testimony, and no one wants their legal fate in the hands of sleepers who weren't even listening to the testimony or judicial instructions. That situation would certainly merit a reversal so that the defendant's Constitutional rights to a FAIR and speedy trial would be upheld.

Why can't you read the story ....

The woman, who was texting was in UTAH.

The woman who was sleeping was in MASSACHUSETTS.

two different states separated by about 1500 miles.

As for texting - it depends if the "audience" was told to shut off their phones or not. Yes it could be viewed as disrepectful - 30 days for updateing her husband on his case - a little harsh. If her phone was silent - it may not have been noticed. AND Yes the judge is "god" in his courtroom. If you don't like it, vote him out of office.

By the way Margrit the above post about reading the story was not aimed at you...

Perhaps it was not one text to her husband. Perhaps it was several and she was disrespectful in other ways. That would make more sense. Remember, the press loves to sensationalize things and we never get the whole story!

At the threshold, Ms. Green fails to identify whether there is a law or a rule of court permitting the trial judge to invoke a sentence for "contempt." Were there any warnings? If there is such a statute, is there a corollary statute allowing for discretion by the judge? I would concur that 30 days seems a bit austere for using a device to communicate information. Additionally, any criminal statute (legislated by the Utah legislature) still must have two indispensable elements: actus reas and mens reas. Where is the evil in using a device?

Ms. Green, do you know if the woman was represented? the status?

Ms. Green, you comment "if she can take her phone with her" is inappropriate at the least.