Can a Judge Use a Defendant’s Outbursts in Court to Increase his Sentence?

[DGUtley]

On April 14, 2021, the Supreme Court of Ohio heard oral argument in State of Ohio v. Manson M. Bryant, 2020-0599. At issue in this case is whether a defendant’s expletive-laden outburst directed at the judge after his sentence was announced constitutes a lawful basis for the judge to increase the defendant’s sentence, or whether it should be solely punishable as contempt of court.

Initially, the trial court sentenced Bryant to an aggregate term of twenty-two years. When the judge announced the sentence, Bryant became angry, let loose a torrent of cusswords at the judge and accused him of racism. The judge, responding directly to Bryant, stated, “When I said that you had a certain amount of remorse, I was mistaken,” and changed the sentences on two of the counts to the maximum sentence, effectively adding six years to Bryant’s sentence. Bryant appealed.

---

“How can a court really determine whether someone is remorseful?” - Justice Stewart, to the Assistant Public Defender

---

“Where in the statute does it say the judge can consider courtroom behavior at sentencing to impose additional terms related to what the legislature says can punish the crimes of robbery and burglary?” - Justice Donnelly, to the Assistant County Prosecutor

---

Fireworks.gif

85047231.png

10-Shocking-Courtroom-Outbursts-Caught-on-Camera-1024x576.jpg

courts.jpg

chaos.jpg




https://legallyspeakingohio.com/2021...nson-m-bryant/

[nathanbforrest45]

My first instinct is to say contempt of court only. However, if the judge had the legal authority to sentence the defendant to the increased time in the beginning I think the court is entitled to the right of changing its mind under the circumstances.

[jigglepete]

My first instinct is to say contempt of court only. However, if the judge had the legal authority to sentence the defendant to the increased time in the beginning I think the court is entitled to the right of changing its mind under the circumstances.

Without being up on the law, I agree with both your initial instinct, and your however...

[carolina73]

The entire remorse deal is ridiculous.

An innocent person is forced to lie to get a lighter sentence by basically admitting guilt because the jury decided he was. Then he gets to stand there and be told off by the victims.
DNA testing has cleared a number of people of charges that had them spend decades in jail. Many cases are won on appeal. Why should these victims have to face the people that put hem in that situation.


A guilty person tests out his acting skills, by telling everyone how sorry they are and that they promises they will never do it again. The best liars get the lowest sentences.


What was the crime. What were the damages. What were the circumstances.
Not who deserves the Oscar.

[jigglepete]

I was fighting a speeding ticket (don't remember where), I was far back on the docket, some guy about four people in front of me started questioning the officer that had sited him, then he started arguing with the judge...then, he made the crucial mistake..."your honor, I know my rights, I'm a lawyer!" Everyone in the court room froze, cringed, then suppressed laughter as best they could (I actually LOLed), the judge, trying not to laugh himself, found him guilty without listening to the rest of his argument, then proceeded to find everyone after him (including me) not guilty.

Judge; "Sir, are you ever going to speed in my district again?"

Me; "No your Honor"

Judge; "Not guilty, have a nice day sir"

I think judges should have a certain amount of leeway, but maybe I'm biased...

[Adelaide]

The entire remorse deal is ridiculous.

An innocent person is forced to lie to get a lighter sentence by basically admitting guilt because the jury decided he was. Then he gets to stand there and be told off by the victims.
DNA testing has cleared a number of people of charges that had them spend decades in jail. Many cases are won on appeal. Why should these victims have to face the people that put hem in that situation.


A guilty person tests out his acting skills, by telling everyone how sorry they are and that they promises they will never do it again. The best liars get the lowest sentences.


What was the crime. What were the damages. What were the circumstances.
Not who deserves the Oscar.

People are pretty transparent.

But there is value in someone being able to say they're sorry even if they don't mean it. Some people need to hear that (and again, even when it isn't genuine). Saying sorry and showing remorse features huge in our culture. Also, the simple act of saying it is impossible for some people. Think about being a kid who did something and your parents are saying you have to go apologize to someone and you feel the resistance to do so (I think because of pride). Even when you don't mean it or think you did something wrong, it's humbling. It can also be a learning experience.

[RMNIXON]

My first instinct is to say contempt of court only. However, if the judge had the legal authority to sentence the defendant to the increased time in the beginning I think the court is entitled to the right of changing its mind under the circumstances.

I was of the same mind as contempt has a specific purpose to keep order in the court.

On the other hand if your so stupid as to go after a Judge who has sentence authority then perhaps you deserve the worst?

[nathanbforrest45]

If someone killed my parents, spouse or child I don't give a damn if they are sorry or not. Weeping and wearing sack cloth will not bring back my loved ones. And frankly, I don't understand "closure", now that I know Billy Bob will spend the rest of his life behind bars I am supposed to forget about the loss of my loved one?

[FindersKeepers]

If someone killed my parents, spouse or child I don't give a damn if they are sorry or not. Weeping and wearing sack cloth will not bring back my loved ones. And frankly, I don't understand "closure", now that I know Billy Bob will spend the rest of his life behind bars I am supposed to forget about the loss of my loved one?

I agree--showing remorse in court is overrated. The deed is done. There is no closure--there may be a bit of a feeling of justice being served if there is a conviction, but that's it.

Once someone steals a loved one from you, it leaves a gaping hole that never heals.

[carolina73]

People are pretty transparent.

But there is value in someone being able to say they're sorry even if they don't mean it. Some people need to hear that (and again, even when it isn't genuine). Saying sorry and showing remorse features huge in our culture. Also, the simple act of saying it is impossible for some people. Think about being a kid who did something and your parents are saying you have to go apologize to someone and you feel the resistance to do so (I think because of pride). Even when you don't mean it or think you did something wrong, it's humbling. It can also be a learning experience.

I was turned around on almost all my ideals when I lived in VA. There was a case of a man who was jailed for over 20 years for rape. This was in the early 90's and DNA was around but the backlog was huge.
They tested the girls under garments and found that he was innocent. About 5 years later they identified the guy who was already in jail. The legal system did not want to release him despite the limits.

So now I see things through his eyes. I imagine he had to stand there on his lawyer's advice as the victim and apologize to everyone for what he did but did not actually do on his lawyers instructions.

Sorry for the rape victim but creating a new victim and then rubbing it in his face, has no justification. Forcing someone to lie under oath to claim remorse for what they did not do is a legal travesty. Finding him guilty may have been a mistake. The rest was intentional.

I have heard enough of these cases that I turned against capital punishment.

I wonder how the woman felt that put a innocent guy in jail for 20+ years and knows that he had to fake his
allocution.