Woman gets 30 days in jail for texting in court

[Missourian]

1. it wouldn't be "listed".

2. there doesn't have to be a "ban" for a judge to order someone to "put away the cell phone".

aren't you listening?

I can't believe I am responding to you.... but did you even read the article...of course not or you would've seen the following...

Please stop making a fool of yourself...

Jackson reported there were no notices or warnings posted, a statement contradicted by the clerk's office spokeswoman, who told WND that visitors to court were told of the judge's ban on text messages. However, when asked how the warning was delivered, by sign or verbal statement, she said, "I have no idea."

again, IDIOT... the judge only had to give a verbal warning.

do me a favor and please argue about these with someone who DOESN'T spend all day in court.

In the article, the court clerk is asked about a verbal warning and said she had "no idea". I would imagine that a court clerk who had sat through that verbal warning time and again would remember it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

According to the article nobody knew where the ban was listed.... So how do we know there was one?

1. it wouldn't be "listed".

2. there doesn't have to be a "ban" for a judge to order someone to "put away the cell phone".

aren't you listening?

Aren't YOU. It said the Judge did not even KNOW she sent a text till informed LATER by a member of the Court Staff. So he could not have "ordered" her to stop nor could he have warned her not to do it. The Court spokesman claims it is a STANDING restriction and YES Jillian those have to be posted or stated at some point in order to be enforced.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

again, IDIOT... the judge only had to give a verbal warning.

do me a favor and please argue about these with someone who DOESN'T spend all day in court.

Better be careful, Jillian. If a judge catches you on that laptop, you could be on your way to the pokie.

interestingly, i'm not stupid enough to violate a directive from a judge.

it's fair to have different opinions about whether or not the judge was excessive, even though clearly having the RIGHT to make a contempt finding.

what isn't fair was for the little yutz to think that there needed to be a posted policy before the judge could make such a finding.

And yet we have no evidence he or the Bailiff made a verbal warning either. You are just assuming. One or the other HAS to happen.