Monday, March 23, 2009

People v. Henry (Cal. Ct. App. - March 23, 2009)

It's your trial. During the prosecutor's opening statement, you start saying -- in front of the jury -- "You know what I'm here. They trying to save me life. I didn't do no murder in here." The Court responds: "Stop. Stop." Since your outburst is improper. In addition to the fact that your grammar is atrocious. But you continue, saying "What the fuck is wrong with you? I didn't do no murder. I ain't resisting arrest. I'm a psych patient. They trying to give me life for something I did not do. For the record, I'm a psych patient. I didn't do no murder." Then, when you're being escorted out of the courtroom in order to prevent further outbursts in front of the jury, you add: "I need to see my doctor. I want to see my doctor. I want to see my doctor. I didn't do no damn murder. What the fuck is wrong with you people?"

That's bad enough, and more than justifies removing you from the courtroom. But then, once you get back into a holding cell, you (1) take off all your clothes -- presumably to ensure that they don't take you back into court, but my ability to understand why you're doing what you're doing is admittedly low, and (2) threaten to stab anyone who tries to take you out of your cell.

Given all this, when your appointed appellate lawyer argues that you were impermissibly excluded from your trial, are you really surprised that the Court of Appeal unanimously disagrees?