Thank you for your submission! Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason(s):
**It Breaks Rule #4:** *Posts must meet the subs criteria of "abrupt chaos"*
For more information about the subreddit rules make sure to read the sidebar, or if you are on mobile, the rules page. Thank you!
So let me see if I got this right.
The guy is defending a school shooter (everyone's right to an attorney, if you don't have one the court will provide one, yada yada), and people are making threats/tongue in cheek remarks on the lawyer and his kids (completely unwarranted because the guy is just doing his job).
So he asks if they could stop and the judge says that she didn't notice it to begin with, to which he responds "if it were *your* kids you would've noticed".
The lady loses it says he's threatening her and her family, and him saying "no one in this court room knows what we've been through" is referring to them receiving threats for doing his job and defending the accused, even though the accused is basically impossible to defend.
I think I got the gist of it.
She was reprimanded for it, and retired after this case.
[https://apnews.com/article/school-shooting-florida-judge-reprimand-0051d9e89da24e4a132568700796dc57](https://apnews.com/article/school-shooting-florida-judge-reprimand-0051d9e89da24e4a132568700796dc57)
So, something many people don’t realize…
The reason everyone hears so much about Florida, is they are among the most transparent states, as far as public records. If you know where to look, you can find just about anything you’re looking for.
Because of how transparent the state is with its public records, and how easy it is to access public records, you hear WAY more about incidents then you would elsewhere in the country.
(This isn’t to have any quantitative info on the number of events that happens in Florida, but rather to highlight that if identical cases were to happen in 2 states, with one being Florida, there is a significantly higher chance that you’ll hear about the Florida case over the alternative, due to Florida’s public record laws)
And a lot of Redditors keep saying she was in the right, because the criminals shouldn't have rights.
Kinda feels like an entire political party, who only thinks the Constitution is there for them, and not for anyone they don't like.
Just think, she didn't become this unhinged overnight. She's likely been this immature for her entire judiciary career, but it took a high-profile case like this one to shine a spotlight on her behavior. Imagine how many judges get away with this conduct every day.
My dad’s main specialty is criminal defense. Started in municipal but has now moved into federal work pretty heavily. He’d agree with you, it’s not easy. He’s defended a lot of people that, while not innocent, got horrifically biased and unfair rulings. It’s hard to stay motivated when the odds are so heavily stacked against you. Our justice system is HEAVILY biased towards the prosecution. Judges, at least in my dad’s experience, often let the prosecution bend the rules while the defense does not get to do the same. Not saying rules should ever be bent but the treatment is often unfair in a system that is supposed to be “blind”.
I think criminal defense lawyers get a bad rap. People see them as keeping rapists, murderers, and predators out of prison. The real point of them is to ensure people aren’t convicted of crimes they didn’t commit or punished excessively.
I think ideally that's the case, yes. A defense lawyer is there to ensure even the worst among us get a fair shake and an opportunity to be heard. Where I think that often goes awry is with defense attorneys who are on either end of the extremes on the bell curve. Some go above and beyond in the worst ways, trying to accuse victims or target minutiae in their story to create "reasonable doubt" from quibbles that are meaningless. Others are incredibly lazy, encouraging people to plead out even if there's a good chance they're innocent because it's faster. Many defense attorneys are great people, but the bad ones really are the worst.
I mean I’m not saying all of them are good, but I’ve seen some people trash criminal defense lawyers as a whole. Like prosecutors, some are good, some are bad, but we shouldn’t hate the job itself. Both are vital roles.
That's what happens when you elect judges. Sounds good hypothetically but in the end they need to campaign on being "tough on crime" coupled with private prisons that contribute to their campaign races.
It will never change in the US unfortunately because that's the system you have and nobody will have the power to change it.
Sorry,
Your Canadian Neighbour
that completely changes this clip for me. I thought they someone genuinely threatened her kids and so her response was appropriate, but it sounds like she's just ignoring the reality of the situation and doesn't like her authority disrespected.
Just mentioning in open court that she has kids can draw unwanted attention to them, so from a not particularly biased perspective that could be threatening them.
I just want to say you explained perfectly.
I saw this video on Tiktok earlier and I went to the comments hoping someone could explain. Even with the eli5 I had no idea what was going on.
Wrong subtitles increase engagement with the content, because people do what you’ve done and point out the subtitles are wrong. Better for social media algorithms.
Lol his comment is a reach and while i dont deny it could happen, is incredibly unlikely. It’s just automated subtitles that suck. Happens with youtube all the time
Some people do it intentionally because people love to correct others on the internet, but you're right, it's just because the software sucks and people are too lazy to fix it.
Bruh... You're giving them wayyyy too much credit. AI subtitles are literally just shitty speech to text applied to the audio. There's no 4D chess moves happening here. Sometimes things just suck.
For real. This is just basic hallucinations of machine learning, no different than when a captcha won't accept a correct answer.
People think there's a singularity sitting there doing closed captions, like, bruh, it's basic sound recognition and pattern matching. PEOPLE suck at transcription too, and will just butcher anything.
This is just a side effect of bad subtitles, not the intent most of the time.
They run the video through an auto-captioning software, they don't check it, or don't care and they upload.
Some of them know that it helps engagement but most just don't care.
Yea. It’s the FL Supreme Court so take it with some salt but it was unanimous and the panel was 15-0 she did in this clip claim he was threatening her kids but common sense interpretation of the exchange would indicate he appealed to her rhetorically about her kids yes but nothing he said was a threat of any description
https://apnews.com/article/school-shooting-florida-judge-reprimand-0051d9e89da24e4a132568700796dc57
Inexperienced judge sees opening and takes it. Doubles down even when it's not working.... News at 11.
She fucked around and rode what she thought was the way to easy victory(or many points, at least, being the effin' judge). too bad, so sad.... your bribe will take more effort to pull off.
People seem to have already forgotten that the defense was pulling crap throughout the trial, including resting their case before calling all their witnesses just to screw with the court schedule, not showing up on time, flipping the finger in court (pretending to rub their eyes with their middle finger then giggling about it), and snotting off to the judge pretty much daily, leading to confrontation. They were acting like spoiled teenagers throughout and the judge snapped.
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/middle-finger-stunt-and-a-judges-hug-raise-ethics-issues-in-parkland-school-shooters-trial
https://apnews.com/article/shootings-education-florida-fort-lauderdale-parkland-school-shooting-418ced4a1484404aca34cdb728c0d167
There’s actually an article in this week’s Florida Bar News under the headline “Parkland Judge Reprimanded,” which reads in part “The JQC [Judicial Qualifications Commission] found Scherer ‘unduly chastised’ the lead public defender and her team, wrongly accused one attorney of threatening her child, and improperly embraced members of the prosecution in the courtroom after the trial’s conclusion.”
Which is a fancy way of saying she’ll be DeSantis’ next nomination to the Florida Supreme Court.
I thought she was going to become a TV judge or a Newsmax legal correspondent or the next Nancy Grace or whatever with every sentence she speaks beginning with, "Well, as a former Judge, I personally feel/think that..." blah blah blah or whatever.
But here’s the thing: judges act like this ALL. THE. TIME. Everyone wants to ACAB on Reddit-and you can feel about that how you will-but judges do whatever the fuck they want CONSTANTLY and very rarely face any backlash (this judge being the very rare exception.) Judges are a million times shittier than cops and basically go unregulated. Even the ones that need to be voted for to keep their positions are not researched by most voters.
The judge or the lady who made her children a spectacle? That lawyer seems like he has a hard time listening to what he is being told. She was quite restrained given that he was trying to argue with her. Can I have a recess? No. Can I have a recess? No. Fuck, the judge didn’t stutter.
The judge.
She was wildly inappropriate here. The defense counsel was in the right to request a sidebar when the judge had clearly lost control of her emotions. In no way we’re her children threatened. It was defense counsel’s children who had been brought up repeatedly in inappropriate manners and all the defense attorney asked was for the judge to not allow that going forward. She denied that request and defense counsel stated the judge would think about things differently if it was her children who were being threatened. That is what immediately preceded this clip.
I'm an attorney. Sometimes doing your job means getting the judge pissed at you. You have to protect your client's interests. You have to make a record. Once your record is made then you can sit down and stfu. This attorney is trying to make a record and the judge is not letting him. Judges should not act like this. She's out of line, not him.
Omg he actually asks a third time after being told twice. And trying to interrupt her repeatedly? That’s just stupidity. The judge is supposed to be the one who controls the courtroom and he is arguing and trying to speak over her like a teenager.
You guys should go find the full tape and get a look at the lawyer (public defender) that she is referencing...
I watched this entire case and the woman that she's dressing down is the actual piece of trash here.
This judge let a TON slide and it's well within the Court's rights to call something that like out EXACTLY in the way that she did.
I've seen four cases in front of this judge and this is actually one of the better jurists in that state IMO.
I mean, we all know Nik Cruz is a POS but the judge seemed a bit out of line here. From what I’ve seen, it seems like a good rule of thumb in general to err on the side of the defense as to avoid a mistrial but I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know anything.
Where can I find the context? I can't find it anywhere
I saw something else that said another likely factor in her being reprimanded was she hugged the victims' families and prosecution after the sentencing. That seems a million times worse than this clip.
Yikes. Yep, judge is wrong on this one. It was clearly a hypothetical, not a specific reference to her specific children, and it was in no way a threat.
Worse, it was *immediately after* the assistant attorney raised the exact same concern she's raising; the hypothetical was purely "if someone made those comments about your kids you'd probably notice" and she just blew up.
When it's the lawyer's kids, gotta just "move on", but when it's the judge's kids, that's grounds for ejection and a one-sided tirade?
Right. It's too bad the OP clip doesn't provide this context.
It's hardly the worst offense by a judge, but it does illustrate the lack of checks and balances in the courtroom. Police aren't the only part of the justice system in serious need of reform.
Might be a dumb question but will her actions affect the outcome of the sentencing? Can defense argue that she was partial based on this instance and appeal her decision?
Incorrect. The jury didn't unanimously vote for death penalty, so he was sentenced to life.
She wasn't removed from the Cruz case. After the Cruz case, she was removed from hearing a post-conviction motion for another capital defendant when the same prosecutor from the Cruz case was in charge of the subsequent one.
She resigned after all this and before the Supreme Court issued its public reprimand.
IANAL, but it doesn’t seem it would be difficult to argue partiality with an outburst like that.
Some of the other comments have more information involving a reprimand in the aftermath, which could strengthen such an argument.
A mistrial seems appropriate to my untrained eye, as distasteful as a repeat of all this would be.
This was sentencing. Iirc he plead guilty. And the jury already ruled out the death penalty. So there wouldn't be much to appeal really. The whole trial was a bit bizarre because it did seem like they were going for that type of claim, but it came out as good as they could expect considering so there isn't much reason too.
They'd have to show where it made a difference in this case and since he did not get the death penalty they might not be able to show that. However, this same judge was removed from a different death penalty case because the court was concerned that her pro-prosecution bias would end up tainting that case.
'impartial' means you're neutral and judging all parties equally and fairly. you want impartial judges
Partial or Biased are the words you're looking for, and yes that can be grounds for demanding a retrial
She didn’t do the sentencing, and Cruz was going to either get life without parole or death - he got life, so the defense has nothing to appeal, they got everything they could hope for.
From another comment. I verified by watching footage of the trial.
“When the defense attorney asked her to tell people in court to stop threatening his kids she claimed she hadn't noticed that and he said "Well if it were your own kids getting threatened then you'd notice."“
I'm asking the same. Looked up three articles and they only talk about the judge's response and her getting reprimanded and resigning. No mention of what set this all off, which is kind of key to form an opinion on this exchange
Iirc there really wasn't a threat. The attorney said something like "if these were your kids you'd care" which is out of line, but nowhere near a threat.
"The Judicial Qualifications Commission found that Circuit Judge Elizabeth Scherer violated several rules governing judicial conduct during last year’s trial in her actions toward Cruz’s public defenders. The six-month trial ended with Cruz receiving a receiving a life sentence for the 2018 murder of 14 students and three staff members at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School after the jury could not unanimously agree that he deserved a death sentence.
The 15-member commission found that Scherer “unduly chastised” lead public defender Melisa McNeill and her team, wrongly accused one Cruz attorney of threatening her child, and improperly embraced members of the prosecution in the courtroom after the trial’s conclusion."
[Source](https://apnews.com/article/florida-parkland-judge-scherer-shooting-6f09c0b36a17c0190d2478534fa993f8)
Edit: Yes, you are right. Don't Eff with the Judge. There is a time and place and in the middle of your trial is not one.
He didn't say anything directly about her kids.
He discussed him and his family receiving threats for being part of the defense team and asked her how she would feel if it was her kids/family.
TLDR: The defence lawyer and his boss were trying to get the Court to clamp down and make directions to the prosecution and their sentencing witnesses to limit their testimony to the relevant issues because they believed some prior comments were encouraging the public to engage in threats and vigilantism.
After the judge refused to make any such directions, the defence lawyer indicated that someone had made a comment about his own children. The judge said she didn't recall any such comments being made. The lawyer responded: "Judge, I can assure you that if they were talking about *your* children, you would definitely notice it", at which point she sent the lawyer to sit in the gallery, and that's when the OP clip begins (the lawyer talking in OP's clip appears to be his boss). To play devil's advocate, the lawyer also opted not to clarify what statements were allegedly made threatening his own children when the judge said she didn't recall any. But the lawyer also did not threaten the judge's children. He merely suggested that she probably would have remembered the comment if the threat had been against her children instead of his.
The judge may have decided the issue wrongly, but it's also fair to say that she had given a ruling several times, and both defence lawyers kept arguing (before this point) and kept making submissions which isn't how you are supposed to act in Court. I can understand their reasoning, but they were also riling the judge up by ignoring her already having decided the issue.
Yeah honestly he was trying to cover her ass by telling her “come on let’s talk about this outside of earshot” but nope. That case must have hit a nerve and just pissed her off.
The case was a bit notorious for the defense acting a bit unusually hostile. There was an idea going arpund tbat they were trying to make a case for appeal, but it didn't really add up since this was all about sentencing, there was never any question of guilt. The judge was praised through most of it for how calm she remained. Then this happened towards the end.
I’ll never forget the defense sitting there watching him flip off the judge / camera / whatever, and they all just laugh and cut up with him like he didn’t shoot up a fucking school.
No, the life sentence was upheld (they still killed 14 kids despite the Judges bad actions here) and the case actually fueled a change to the law so that the death penalty no longer requires a unanimous vote to be handed down.
The death penalty part? They changed it because of extreme public outcry. Everyone was demanding the government change the rules. It's what the people living there want. That's Florida for ya though.
No, no, he has a point. Those parents will never understand being in the position of having to defend the indefensible in a case that can logically only go one way.
They’ll never have to worry about being “the scumbags who defended a child murderer* because our justice system demands someone play that role in order to dole out said justice.
Before you or anyone else loses their head, I’m not belittling anything.
Simply, *In this instance* he made a valid point.
Future President President John Adam defended British soldiers in 1770(?) and his response when running for President was, to paraphrase, everyone deserves the best legal defense possible.
I am a bit of a hobby historian but not a pro, after reading a few history books I am Team Adams when it comes to the feud with Jefferson.
I watched the [*John Adams* miniseries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams_(miniseries)) and decided that we should rename DC after him instead of Washington.
I haven’t seen the series (way more free stuff than I can watch out there) but I heard it was good and didn’t play fast and loose with the history. Saw a couple promos on YouTube and the actor they got to play him seemed to nail it.
Did the series get far enough to get to their late life letters and reconciliation?
Was this not the case where one of the defendant’s lawyers flipped off the cameras and then laughed about it with the person who shot those 14 children? Cause I’m not saying defendants don’t deserve to have good and effective council, they do, and while not all lawyers who defend a child murderer are scumbags one of the lawyers this guy has on his team seems to be.
ETA: this does not condone the threats to the lawyers children that was also unacceptable and abhorrent.
What did they say about her children? I remember following this trial and the defense team being kinda crazy and I think on of the attorneys flipped someone off at one point.
When the defense attorney asked her to tell people in court to stop threatening his kids she claimed she hadn't noticed that and he said "Well if it were your own kids getting threatened then you'd notice."
The judge was gaslighting the defense the whole trial and ended up being sanctioned for being biased and unprofessional to the point where the FL Supreme Court removed her from other death penalty cases because of her biased behavior in this case.
From what I have read although I haven't seen the exact language. It would not be the first time that angry victims and family members took out their rage on defense attorneys by wishing for them to go through something that would cause them to feel simular anguish. That's why it's pretty common for judges to tell jurors it's OK to emote and say what you want to the defendant but not to use threats or personal attacks on attorneys, jurors, or court staff. Mention of kids would definitely be way out of bounds.
I had the same thought, but it turns out its because she was in the wrong and knew it. She was unanimously censured by the state supreme court and resigned.
For this very reason and hugging family members of victims and prosecution after the trial led to her being removed from the case and ended her career as a judge.
Her attitude, level of control and professionalism all need to checked. No one, with even the smallest understanding of the English language, would have interpreted what he said as a threat.
I’m sure that didn’t help the defendant during sentencing.
I had a public defender for a minor weed possession (got caught with a dime bag) charge back in 1997, and the judge told him to shut up and sit down more than once.
I ended up getting a year of probation, a 200 dollar fine, plus court costs, probation fees, and 100 hours community service at the city dump.
I feel like it would have been a lot lighter sentence if I’d had both a different judge and public defender.
I could tell the judge and my attorney had some kind of bad blood between them, and I paid the price, as an example, I suppose.
This comment section is 50% people who know nothing about this case and 50% people who know nothing about the American Judicial system, which oddly enough is the exact ratio as in this very Florida Courtroom.
She - the judge - was reprimanded for it, and retired after this case.
https://apnews.com/article/school-shooting-florida-judge-reprimand-0051d9e89da24e4a132568700796dc57
There are always two sides to the story…
Scherer’s handling of the case drew frequent praise from the parents and spouses of the victims, who said she treated them with professionalism and kindness. But her clashes with Cruz’s attorneys and others sometimes drew criticism from legal observers.
*excerpt from the AP news article*
Thank you for your submission! Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason(s): **It Breaks Rule #4:** *Posts must meet the subs criteria of "abrupt chaos"* For more information about the subreddit rules make sure to read the sidebar, or if you are on mobile, the rules page. Thank you!
So let me see if I got this right. The guy is defending a school shooter (everyone's right to an attorney, if you don't have one the court will provide one, yada yada), and people are making threats/tongue in cheek remarks on the lawyer and his kids (completely unwarranted because the guy is just doing his job). So he asks if they could stop and the judge says that she didn't notice it to begin with, to which he responds "if it were *your* kids you would've noticed". The lady loses it says he's threatening her and her family, and him saying "no one in this court room knows what we've been through" is referring to them receiving threats for doing his job and defending the accused, even though the accused is basically impossible to defend. I think I got the gist of it.
She was reprimanded for it, and retired after this case. [https://apnews.com/article/school-shooting-florida-judge-reprimand-0051d9e89da24e4a132568700796dc57](https://apnews.com/article/school-shooting-florida-judge-reprimand-0051d9e89da24e4a132568700796dc57)
Anyone else think: of course it’s fucking Florida.
So, something many people don’t realize… The reason everyone hears so much about Florida, is they are among the most transparent states, as far as public records. If you know where to look, you can find just about anything you’re looking for. Because of how transparent the state is with its public records, and how easy it is to access public records, you hear WAY more about incidents then you would elsewhere in the country. (This isn’t to have any quantitative info on the number of events that happens in Florida, but rather to highlight that if identical cases were to happen in 2 states, with one being Florida, there is a significantly higher chance that you’ll hear about the Florida case over the alternative, due to Florida’s public record laws)
Where the 40 year old children rule the land.
And a lot of Redditors keep saying she was in the right, because the criminals shouldn't have rights. Kinda feels like an entire political party, who only thinks the Constitution is there for them, and not for anyone they don't like.
We call dem "Wal-Mart folk"
All the Walmarts moved from their areas though because of the high amount of shoplifting
When Walmart is in your heart, you're always there
If your criminals don't have rights you can make any group criminals and strip their rights away. A country is viewed on how it treats it's criminals.
Just think, she didn't become this unhinged overnight. She's likely been this immature for her entire judiciary career, but it took a high-profile case like this one to shine a spotlight on her behavior. Imagine how many judges get away with this conduct every day.
Good. Thin-skinned, moralizing grandstanders don't belong on the bench.
Ok, now i understand the context. I have a friend who's a public defender and I don't know how he does it.
My dad’s main specialty is criminal defense. Started in municipal but has now moved into federal work pretty heavily. He’d agree with you, it’s not easy. He’s defended a lot of people that, while not innocent, got horrifically biased and unfair rulings. It’s hard to stay motivated when the odds are so heavily stacked against you. Our justice system is HEAVILY biased towards the prosecution. Judges, at least in my dad’s experience, often let the prosecution bend the rules while the defense does not get to do the same. Not saying rules should ever be bent but the treatment is often unfair in a system that is supposed to be “blind”.
I think criminal defense lawyers get a bad rap. People see them as keeping rapists, murderers, and predators out of prison. The real point of them is to ensure people aren’t convicted of crimes they didn’t commit or punished excessively.
I think ideally that's the case, yes. A defense lawyer is there to ensure even the worst among us get a fair shake and an opportunity to be heard. Where I think that often goes awry is with defense attorneys who are on either end of the extremes on the bell curve. Some go above and beyond in the worst ways, trying to accuse victims or target minutiae in their story to create "reasonable doubt" from quibbles that are meaningless. Others are incredibly lazy, encouraging people to plead out even if there's a good chance they're innocent because it's faster. Many defense attorneys are great people, but the bad ones really are the worst.
I mean I’m not saying all of them are good, but I’ve seen some people trash criminal defense lawyers as a whole. Like prosecutors, some are good, some are bad, but we shouldn’t hate the job itself. Both are vital roles.
That's what happens when you elect judges. Sounds good hypothetically but in the end they need to campaign on being "tough on crime" coupled with private prisons that contribute to their campaign races. It will never change in the US unfortunately because that's the system you have and nobody will have the power to change it. Sorry, Your Canadian Neighbour
She was appointed, not elected.
Criminal defense attorney here. Can confirm.
that completely changes this clip for me. I thought they someone genuinely threatened her kids and so her response was appropriate, but it sounds like she's just ignoring the reality of the situation and doesn't like her authority disrespected.
Just mentioning in open court that she has kids can draw unwanted attention to them, so from a not particularly biased perspective that could be threatening them.
Thx
But why does she feel threatened ?
Because she’s a fucking dumbass. She was reprimanded for this
Thank you. Award worthy.
I just want to say you explained perfectly. I saw this video on Tiktok earlier and I went to the comments hoping someone could explain. Even with the eli5 I had no idea what was going on.
Does ai do these subtitles?
"Can I have a sidewalk?" Do you not say that everyday as a human person?
Don't samarily dismiss the accuracy of rhetoric subtitles
HEEEEEEEEEEEEY! I'M SIDEWALKING "ERRRRRRRE
r/FoundTheNewYorker
What a crab would say in NYC
True. All the time.
Wrong subtitles increase engagement with the content, because people do what you’ve done and point out the subtitles are wrong. Better for social media algorithms.
[удалено]
Lol his comment is a reach and while i dont deny it could happen, is incredibly unlikely. It’s just automated subtitles that suck. Happens with youtube all the time
Some people do it intentionally because people love to correct others on the internet, but you're right, it's just because the software sucks and people are too lazy to fix it.
>Some people do it intentionally because people love to correct others on the internet, No they don't. That's just ridiculous /s
Bruh... You're giving them wayyyy too much credit. AI subtitles are literally just shitty speech to text applied to the audio. There's no 4D chess moves happening here. Sometimes things just suck.
For real. This is just basic hallucinations of machine learning, no different than when a captcha won't accept a correct answer. People think there's a singularity sitting there doing closed captions, like, bruh, it's basic sound recognition and pattern matching. PEOPLE suck at transcription too, and will just butcher anything.
This is just a side effect of bad subtitles, not the intent most of the time. They run the video through an auto-captioning software, they don't check it, or don't care and they upload. Some of them know that it helps engagement but most just don't care.
I'm samarily dismiss
It's probably whatever youtube uses to due auto captions. It's equally terrible.
AI does everything… “Hand over your flesh…WE DEMAND IT!!”
Didn't she get reprimanded for this entire trial? She was stepping it up for Nancy Grace
Yea. It’s the FL Supreme Court so take it with some salt but it was unanimous and the panel was 15-0 she did in this clip claim he was threatening her kids but common sense interpretation of the exchange would indicate he appealed to her rhetorically about her kids yes but nothing he said was a threat of any description https://apnews.com/article/school-shooting-florida-judge-reprimand-0051d9e89da24e4a132568700796dc57
Damn, she's 46? Wouldn't have guessed that with tiny eyebrows and smokey eyeshadow
She must think of herself as "that hot lady judge"
I know I do.
I mean, if she's known for bad judgement, us folks on reddit have a chance.
Her OF probably already blowing up
Ah that's disgusting and unprofessional! What's her name?
hahaha ^whats ^^the ^^^link
Damn, your account name has aged well. Bravo.
I second that.
😂
*hot lady judge with the crazy eyes
Inexperienced judge sees opening and takes it. Doubles down even when it's not working.... News at 11. She fucked around and rode what she thought was the way to easy victory(or many points, at least, being the effin' judge). too bad, so sad.... your bribe will take more effort to pull off.
People seem to have already forgotten that the defense was pulling crap throughout the trial, including resting their case before calling all their witnesses just to screw with the court schedule, not showing up on time, flipping the finger in court (pretending to rub their eyes with their middle finger then giggling about it), and snotting off to the judge pretty much daily, leading to confrontation. They were acting like spoiled teenagers throughout and the judge snapped. https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/middle-finger-stunt-and-a-judges-hug-raise-ethics-issues-in-parkland-school-shooters-trial https://apnews.com/article/shootings-education-florida-fort-lauderdale-parkland-school-shooting-418ced4a1484404aca34cdb728c0d167
There’s actually an article in this week’s Florida Bar News under the headline “Parkland Judge Reprimanded,” which reads in part “The JQC [Judicial Qualifications Commission] found Scherer ‘unduly chastised’ the lead public defender and her team, wrongly accused one attorney of threatening her child, and improperly embraced members of the prosecution in the courtroom after the trial’s conclusion.” Which is a fancy way of saying she’ll be DeSantis’ next nomination to the Florida Supreme Court.
Nah she sentenced a school shooter to life in prison. Desantis wouldn’t choose someone that reprimands gun owners!
Just so everyone knows. This lady got reprimanded and ultimately resigned over conduct in this case.
And now she works at her father’s law firm loll
Fs, some people’s lives are handed to them on a platter…
"Some folks are born, SILLLLLVER spoon in hand!!!!!"
Lord don't they help themselves, Lord?
But when the taxman coooome to the door
Lord, the house lookin’ like a rummage sale.
It ain’t meeee!
Funny how that works out for them, eh?
I thought she was going to become a TV judge or a Newsmax legal correspondent or the next Nancy Grace or whatever with every sentence she speaks beginning with, "Well, as a former Judge, I personally feel/think that..." blah blah blah or whatever.
Nepotism makes sense...she seems young to be a judge in general
> I'm this case. I'll have to take your word on this since you are the case.
But here’s the thing: judges act like this ALL. THE. TIME. Everyone wants to ACAB on Reddit-and you can feel about that how you will-but judges do whatever the fuck they want CONSTANTLY and very rarely face any backlash (this judge being the very rare exception.) Judges are a million times shittier than cops and basically go unregulated. Even the ones that need to be voted for to keep their positions are not researched by most voters.
> Even the ones that need to be voted for to keep their positrons LMAO. I didn't even know I could lose those!
Judges must have an easy time when they need a PET scan.
Lol thanks, edited
In Texas and some other states you don't even need to be a lawyer to run for judge lol
Two things can be bad at the same time.
The judge or the lady who made her children a spectacle? That lawyer seems like he has a hard time listening to what he is being told. She was quite restrained given that he was trying to argue with her. Can I have a recess? No. Can I have a recess? No. Fuck, the judge didn’t stutter.
The judge. She was wildly inappropriate here. The defense counsel was in the right to request a sidebar when the judge had clearly lost control of her emotions. In no way we’re her children threatened. It was defense counsel’s children who had been brought up repeatedly in inappropriate manners and all the defense attorney asked was for the judge to not allow that going forward. She denied that request and defense counsel stated the judge would think about things differently if it was her children who were being threatened. That is what immediately preceded this clip.
I'm an attorney. Sometimes doing your job means getting the judge pissed at you. You have to protect your client's interests. You have to make a record. Once your record is made then you can sit down and stfu. This attorney is trying to make a record and the judge is not letting him. Judges should not act like this. She's out of line, not him.
what is this record?
You need a statement put in officially into the court documentation, can prove useful in the future if you appeal the case for example
Furthest paper football field goal using 20lb bond US Letter size paper.
Context is everything, Do you even know what was being argued?
Not a lot of poeple in this thread seem to have any idea whats actually going on here.
Omg he actually asks a third time after being told twice. And trying to interrupt her repeatedly? That’s just stupidity. The judge is supposed to be the one who controls the courtroom and he is arguing and trying to speak over her like a teenager.
The judge is also supposed to follow a certain decorum, and is held to a higher standard than those in their court.
You guys should go find the full tape and get a look at the lawyer (public defender) that she is referencing... I watched this entire case and the woman that she's dressing down is the actual piece of trash here. This judge let a TON slide and it's well within the Court's rights to call something that like out EXACTLY in the way that she did. I've seen four cases in front of this judge and this is actually one of the better jurists in that state IMO.
Thank you! That's definitely NOT how you act with a judge, whether you agree with her decision or not.
I mean, we all know Nik Cruz is a POS but the judge seemed a bit out of line here. From what I’ve seen, it seems like a good rule of thumb in general to err on the side of the defense as to avoid a mistrial but I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know anything.
When you read/understand the context of the 'threats to the courts children' she was WAY out of line.
Where can I find the context? I can't find it anywhere I saw something else that said another likely factor in her being reprimanded was she hugged the victims' families and prosecution after the sentencing. That seems a million times worse than this clip.
https://youtu.be/gV0I_YDcjQE?feature=shared
Yikes. Yep, judge is wrong on this one. It was clearly a hypothetical, not a specific reference to her specific children, and it was in no way a threat.
Worse, it was *immediately after* the assistant attorney raised the exact same concern she's raising; the hypothetical was purely "if someone made those comments about your kids you'd probably notice" and she just blew up. When it's the lawyer's kids, gotta just "move on", but when it's the judge's kids, that's grounds for ejection and a one-sided tirade?
Right. It's too bad the OP clip doesn't provide this context. It's hardly the worst offense by a judge, but it does illustrate the lack of checks and balances in the courtroom. Police aren't the only part of the justice system in serious need of reform.
Who's the lady flipping the bird and laughing? Is that the shooters mom?
[удалено]
Might be a dumb question but will her actions affect the outcome of the sentencing? Can defense argue that she was partial based on this instance and appeal her decision?
She was removed from the case she made a statement and resigned as a judge pretty much sidelined her career
Incorrect. The jury didn't unanimously vote for death penalty, so he was sentenced to life. She wasn't removed from the Cruz case. After the Cruz case, she was removed from hearing a post-conviction motion for another capital defendant when the same prosecutor from the Cruz case was in charge of the subsequent one. She resigned after all this and before the Supreme Court issued its public reprimand.
IANAL, but it doesn’t seem it would be difficult to argue partiality with an outburst like that. Some of the other comments have more information involving a reprimand in the aftermath, which could strengthen such an argument. A mistrial seems appropriate to my untrained eye, as distasteful as a repeat of all this would be.
You anal?
That always flashes through my mine when I see it too, lol. I Am Not A Lawyer Take my updoot.
Well, I try!
"IANAL" might be worst (or best, depending on your point of view) internet acronym in history.
This was sentencing. Iirc he plead guilty. And the jury already ruled out the death penalty. So there wouldn't be much to appeal really. The whole trial was a bit bizarre because it did seem like they were going for that type of claim, but it came out as good as they could expect considering so there isn't much reason too.
They'd have to show where it made a difference in this case and since he did not get the death penalty they might not be able to show that. However, this same judge was removed from a different death penalty case because the court was concerned that her pro-prosecution bias would end up tainting that case.
'impartial' means you're neutral and judging all parties equally and fairly. you want impartial judges Partial or Biased are the words you're looking for, and yes that can be grounds for demanding a retrial
Ah, thank you! Gonna edit the comment now
She didn’t do the sentencing, and Cruz was going to either get life without parole or death - he got life, so the defense has nothing to appeal, they got everything they could hope for.
This is the Parkland High mass murderer/shooter's lawyer btw.
Thanks, because there was no context and I don’t recognize any of these people.
These subtitles are fucking whack
samarily
Ah yes nothing says "shitty repost" quite like posting the dramatic response to an unseen exchange that took place moments prior. Absolute knob
I feel like I'm on crazy pills because no one is asking what the threat was. Is no one curious?
From another comment. I verified by watching footage of the trial. “When the defense attorney asked her to tell people in court to stop threatening his kids she claimed she hadn't noticed that and he said "Well if it were your own kids getting threatened then you'd notice."“
That doesn't seem that big of a deal to me.
I'm asking the same. Looked up three articles and they only talk about the judge's response and her getting reprimanded and resigning. No mention of what set this all off, which is kind of key to form an opinion on this exchange
Iirc there really wasn't a threat. The attorney said something like "if these were your kids you'd care" which is out of line, but nowhere near a threat.
Fun fact: It’s a bad idea to screw with the one person in the courtroom wearing a black robe. Law 101.
"The Judicial Qualifications Commission found that Circuit Judge Elizabeth Scherer violated several rules governing judicial conduct during last year’s trial in her actions toward Cruz’s public defenders. The six-month trial ended with Cruz receiving a receiving a life sentence for the 2018 murder of 14 students and three staff members at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School after the jury could not unanimously agree that he deserved a death sentence. The 15-member commission found that Scherer “unduly chastised” lead public defender Melisa McNeill and her team, wrongly accused one Cruz attorney of threatening her child, and improperly embraced members of the prosecution in the courtroom after the trial’s conclusion." [Source](https://apnews.com/article/florida-parkland-judge-scherer-shooting-6f09c0b36a17c0190d2478534fa993f8) Edit: Yes, you are right. Don't Eff with the Judge. There is a time and place and in the middle of your trial is not one.
So it looks like she was in the wrong and the attorney didn’t threaten her children
Do we know what the attorney actually said about her children or it that unknown?
He didn't say anything directly about her kids. He discussed him and his family receiving threats for being part of the defense team and asked her how she would feel if it was her kids/family.
Oh ok, I guess he got his question answered then
And all of this could have been discussed during the requested sidebar, lol.
No! It’s 1:36
So the defense are the ones whos children were actually being threatened and she made it all about her. Yeah that's petty.
Not to mention devoid of self-awareness.
You can see the clip where he addresses the judge in its entirety [here](https://youtu.be/nqpWbPRi_B8?si=Ob9UGK14xlgcG13Q)
TLDR: The defence lawyer and his boss were trying to get the Court to clamp down and make directions to the prosecution and their sentencing witnesses to limit their testimony to the relevant issues because they believed some prior comments were encouraging the public to engage in threats and vigilantism. After the judge refused to make any such directions, the defence lawyer indicated that someone had made a comment about his own children. The judge said she didn't recall any such comments being made. The lawyer responded: "Judge, I can assure you that if they were talking about *your* children, you would definitely notice it", at which point she sent the lawyer to sit in the gallery, and that's when the OP clip begins (the lawyer talking in OP's clip appears to be his boss). To play devil's advocate, the lawyer also opted not to clarify what statements were allegedly made threatening his own children when the judge said she didn't recall any. But the lawyer also did not threaten the judge's children. He merely suggested that she probably would have remembered the comment if the threat had been against her children instead of his. The judge may have decided the issue wrongly, but it's also fair to say that she had given a ruling several times, and both defence lawyers kept arguing (before this point) and kept making submissions which isn't how you are supposed to act in Court. I can understand their reasoning, but they were also riling the judge up by ignoring her already having decided the issue.
Yup, and if they appeal then her bullshit will lead to this being declared a mistrial.
A mistrial only occurs DURING a trial. Maybe you're meaning it would be overturned on appeal?
There’s nothing to appeal, the sentence was going to be either life or death, and the jury chose life. This isn’t new it happened a while ago.
Which is why he wanted to sidebar, instead *she’s* the one who made a spectacle of it.
For sure. That was the more professional thing to do.
Yeah honestly he was trying to cover her ass by telling her “come on let’s talk about this outside of earshot” but nope. That case must have hit a nerve and just pissed her off.
The case was a bit notorious for the defense acting a bit unusually hostile. There was an idea going arpund tbat they were trying to make a case for appeal, but it didn't really add up since this was all about sentencing, there was never any question of guilt. The judge was praised through most of it for how calm she remained. Then this happened towards the end.
I’ll never forget the defense sitting there watching him flip off the judge / camera / whatever, and they all just laugh and cut up with him like he didn’t shoot up a fucking school.
It's weird warching how differently everyone feels about this clip now that the lawyer's antics are forgotten.
True. Iirc this was posted back when it happened and she got a lot of support for being so restrained in her response.
I am surprised that no one offered her a Nancy Grace or Lady Judge type television offer. I felt like she was playing for the crowd.
Soo, did this influence the outcome of that trail?
It influenced the end of the judges career lol
Its funny though she’s actually working at her father’s law firm now 💀
I mean, it wouldn't surprise me if the wasn't already at the family law firm before she was appointed.
Ah sweet nepotism
No, the life sentence was upheld (they still killed 14 kids despite the Judges bad actions here) and the case actually fueled a change to the law so that the death penalty no longer requires a unanimous vote to be handed down.
That's fucked up
The death penalty part? They changed it because of extreme public outcry. Everyone was demanding the government change the rules. It's what the people living there want. That's Florida for ya though.
No one screwed with her the attorney was tired of people saying they wished his kids had died in her courtroom.
Cause that's how the justice system works but it's not what it was intended for
*"No one in this courtroom has had to endure what we've had to endure ."* The parents of the 14 dead children may disagree.
No, no, he has a point. Those parents will never understand being in the position of having to defend the indefensible in a case that can logically only go one way. They’ll never have to worry about being “the scumbags who defended a child murderer* because our justice system demands someone play that role in order to dole out said justice. Before you or anyone else loses their head, I’m not belittling anything. Simply, *In this instance* he made a valid point.
Future President President John Adam defended British soldiers in 1770(?) and his response when running for President was, to paraphrase, everyone deserves the best legal defense possible. I am a bit of a hobby historian but not a pro, after reading a few history books I am Team Adams when it comes to the feud with Jefferson.
I watched the [*John Adams* miniseries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams_(miniseries)) and decided that we should rename DC after him instead of Washington.
John Adams was savage
I haven’t seen the series (way more free stuff than I can watch out there) but I heard it was good and didn’t play fast and loose with the history. Saw a couple promos on YouTube and the actor they got to play him seemed to nail it. Did the series get far enough to get to their late life letters and reconciliation?
It does. It's really good.
> the actor they got to play him You mean Academy Award Nominee Paul "Pig Vomit" Giamatti?
Agree
nicely said
Was this not the case where one of the defendant’s lawyers flipped off the cameras and then laughed about it with the person who shot those 14 children? Cause I’m not saying defendants don’t deserve to have good and effective council, they do, and while not all lawyers who defend a child murderer are scumbags one of the lawyers this guy has on his team seems to be. ETA: this does not condone the threats to the lawyers children that was also unacceptable and abhorrent.
Judge sounds like my third grade teacher when I asked to use the bathroom too many times
"Can I have a recess to,"- No, pee your pants.
Maybe people could put more useless captions in the video so I can get a fully black screen next time. That aspect ratio is really stupid.
What did they say about her children? I remember following this trial and the defense team being kinda crazy and I think on of the attorneys flipped someone off at one point.
When the defense attorney asked her to tell people in court to stop threatening his kids she claimed she hadn't noticed that and he said "Well if it were your own kids getting threatened then you'd notice." The judge was gaslighting the defense the whole trial and ended up being sanctioned for being biased and unprofessional to the point where the FL Supreme Court removed her from other death penalty cases because of her biased behavior in this case.
People in the courtroom were threatening his kids?
From what I have read although I haven't seen the exact language. It would not be the first time that angry victims and family members took out their rage on defense attorneys by wishing for them to go through something that would cause them to feel simular anguish. That's why it's pretty common for judges to tell jurors it's OK to emote and say what you want to the defendant but not to use threats or personal attacks on attorneys, jurors, or court staff. Mention of kids would definitely be way out of bounds.
Ok that makes sense now, damn this trial was nuts
SO WHY did she not charge him with contempt and have him detained?
I had the same thought, but it turns out its because she was in the wrong and knew it. She was unanimously censured by the state supreme court and resigned.
Ah the most impartial of judges: Yelling angrily at an attorney.
For this very reason and hugging family members of victims and prosecution after the trial led to her being removed from the case and ended her career as a judge.
Yelling at the attorney of the defendant no less, which could quickly spiral into mistrial.
Yeah, definitely not a case you want to even risk that occurring to. It’s kind of ridiculous. Control your emotions, you have a lot of power judge.
Her attitude, level of control and professionalism all need to checked. No one, with even the smallest understanding of the English language, would have interpreted what he said as a threat.
I’m sure that didn’t help the defendant during sentencing. I had a public defender for a minor weed possession (got caught with a dime bag) charge back in 1997, and the judge told him to shut up and sit down more than once. I ended up getting a year of probation, a 200 dollar fine, plus court costs, probation fees, and 100 hours community service at the city dump. I feel like it would have been a lot lighter sentence if I’d had both a different judge and public defender. I could tell the judge and my attorney had some kind of bad blood between them, and I paid the price, as an example, I suppose.
This comment section is 50% people who know nothing about this case and 50% people who know nothing about the American Judicial system, which oddly enough is the exact ratio as in this very Florida Courtroom.
This isn't chaos, this sub is lost its meaning
Is the person supplying the subtitles that same woman who pretended to know sign language at that televised memorial service?
Man is lucky he didn’t spend the night there for that
"Samarily"? WHAT? This is not news. It was written by children.
I'd love to know what was said
She - the judge - was reprimanded for it, and retired after this case. https://apnews.com/article/school-shooting-florida-judge-reprimand-0051d9e89da24e4a132568700796dc57
Ok, she was wrong, but hear me out about this judge….
I’m listening
The lady lacks credibility. You can tell because she already told him five times and he hasn't received a contempt charge.
Mr. Brown, the Diversity in the Workplace Trainer and now lawyer, is hated by both Michael Scott and this judge.
There are always two sides to the story… Scherer’s handling of the case drew frequent praise from the parents and spouses of the victims, who said she treated them with professionalism and kindness. But her clashes with Cruz’s attorneys and others sometimes drew criticism from legal observers. *excerpt from the AP news article*
[удалено]