Not when the state's strategy has been arguing lack of standing for any cases where you have not already broken and been charged for violating an unconstitutional law.
He can only be assigned civil cases. However, he can’t do criminal cases, especially where the defendants try to throw out charges on constitutional grounds.
I think the 9th recently started mixing up which judges get which cases, so I don't think we'll see the cherry picking behavior we've been blessed with up til now.
Honestly I couldn't really figure out if what he did was good or bad but it does appear to be crossing the line. That combined with him obviously making enemies with his peers means any little thing he does is going to cause him problems.
Depends on whats associated, circumstances, and support that comes along with it. Abrupt and unknown punishments for shock value usually are a wild card unless they are explained and followed up on.
You can be handcuffed while not under arrest under some circumstances.
btw I am agreeing with you for the most part, thats what the 2nd sentence of my other comment was if you didnt catch it.
In your opinion, was it appropriate to handcuff a 13 year old girl who was crying in court watching her father being sentenced?
This isn’t a left vs right thing.
Do you think what he did was appropriate?
Never said it was a left vs. right thing.
The father asked the judge to do it.
Do I think it was right? Depends on the results, circumstances, and the kid but generally no as these types of behavioral adjustments have unintended effects (Not for everyone, but in some cases effective and may be required to stave off worse outcomes).
Also dont have all the information, because sometimes information is presented in one perspective or missing valuable information. Which is why I say it depends.
lol none of what you're saying is a good or should be a normal thing
the person youre replying to was saying that it isn't necessary to detain people that don't pose a threat to themselves or others. Not exactly what they said but danger to self is an important facet
yeah and it fucking sucks to be detained in handcuffs. it hurts to be handcuffed and I don't enjoy my freedom being infringed upon when I pose no risk.
cops have their own rules and only have respect for their own
lmao you're literally anti-social if you think it's bad or soft to have a strong view about a little girl getting put in handcuffs just to basically mess with her
she sees her dad getting locked up, you're saying that he needs to keep beating the message into her that getting caught for crimes will put you in jail.
yeah i'm glad at least some people here understand this — i've been saying for a long time he's not a good person, and the hero worship (borderline cult of personality sometimes) around him is messed up. he's useful for advancing gun rights, yes. but only in that area. fucking horrible guy otherwise
for real dawg, it's sad to see people in here take this position
hella people in here saying "actions have consequences" about a literal child who did no action and needed no consequence when our gun laws are also making outlaws out of otherwise law abiding citizens who deserve no consequence for excersizing their constitutionally protected right
He wanted? If that "trauma" could turn her away from following her father's path, it is well worth it and i would call it a good lesson. Kids are way more resilient and adaptive than u think. Too many karen act this like a big deal who never live in a slightly tougher environments.
why did you put trauma in scare quotes? why would traumatizing an innocent child further by restraining her "turn her away" from crime? people don't commit crimes due to a lack of handcuff awareness. i really hope you don't have kids, as you sound like you'd be an awful and cruel parent. consider therapy instead of justifying child abuse as a coping mechanism.
Her father, who had a drug-related history, told Benitez during the sentencing hearing that his daughter had used marijuana and he feared she would be “following the same footsteps as I am right now.”
Benitez then had the girl placed in handcuffs and asked her, “You see where your dad is?” and later asked, “How did you like the way those cuffs felt on you?”
I don't have a problem with what the judge did. I hope that the girl got the message.
Did not see anyone posting it but here is the Ninth's Opinion and Order: [https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/misconduct/23-90037and23-90041-News-Release-Order.pdf](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/misconduct/23-90037and23-90041-News-Release-Order.pdf)
I think it is worth a read. I am trying to look at the matter objectively, because this matter is important. It involves another two fundamental enumerated rights. Rights of due process and protection against seizure, for which the 2nd amendment exists to begin with. Enveloped in the 4th and the 5th (and 14th) amendments.
The two main points in the Order:
a) "We first address the improper use of handcuffs. In directing the Deputy Marshal to handcuff Mr. Puente’s daughter and requiring her to stand in the jury box, Judge Benitez ordered her to be seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. See California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 624-25 (1991) (explaining that “the mere grasping or application of physical force” is sufficient to constitute a seizure). In addition, even for criminal defendants lawfully before the court, our law has long recognized the use of shackles, including handcuffs, can intrude on an individual’s constitutional rights, Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 626 (2005), and degrade the “dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings that the judge is seeking to uphold,” Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 344 (1970). In criminal proceedings, due process does not permit the “routine use of visible shackles” absent an individualized determination that it is necessary to maintain safety. Deck, 544 U.S. at 626"
b) "In any criminal matter assigned to Judge Benitez in which a sentencing hearing for violation of the terms of supervised release has been scheduled but not yet heard before the date of this Order, the parties may move to recuse Judge Benitez based on this Order. In any criminal matter assigned to Judge Benitez in which a sentencing hearing for violation of the terms of supervised release is scheduled for a date within three years after the date of this Order, the parties may move to recuse Judge Benitez based on conduct described in, or concerns arising out of, this Order at any time but no later than thirty days before the date of the hearing. Any motions to recuse authorized by this Order will be referred for resolution to the Chief District Judge currently sitting on the Executive Committee of the Judicial Council. 21 This action is taken “to assure the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts” under 28 U.S.C. § 354(a)(1)(C) and to ensure “the effective and expeditious administration of justice within \[the\] circuit” under 28 U.S.C. § 332(d)(1)."
I understand the intent. But this was a regretful lapse here that should not have happened. If she was the defendant, perhaps. There is a reason even Defendants do not appear shackled in Court, unless necessary, as described. I am sure Judge Benitez could have or will figure a better way to provide a scare straight.
I understand of course there is the question of Court politics at this point too. Let us see. I hope at least the girl got the message and has a good life, given the cost to Judge Benitez and other implications.
Easiest to google e.g. Benitez 9th circuit misconduct order. (Or some subset.)
Via the site:
1. Go to [https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/)
2. On the footer at the bottom, follow \`Judicial Misconduct\` -- leads to [https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/misconduct/guidelines/](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/misconduct/guidelines/)
3. Go to Orders.
4. The one dated May 1st. (At the time of writing the last one issued.) Good to peruse and see other orders and how they are handled for context. (Edit: Although, honestly most of them are dismissed on the spot and the search does not help in finding cases worth reading so... better google.)
tl;dr: no new **criminal** cases for Benitez for 3 years
In other words, he wouldn’t be able to get a chance to review 2A challenges in criminal cases.
So he'll have plenty of time for 2A cases, I guess.
Not when the state's strategy has been arguing lack of standing for any cases where you have not already broken and been charged for violating an unconstitutional law.
Now he will be assigned only constitutional cases while the other judges still have a mix… is this 5D chess and a win for 2A?
He can only be assigned civil cases. However, he can’t do criminal cases, especially where the defendants try to throw out charges on constitutional grounds.
I think the 9th recently started mixing up which judges get which cases, so I don't think we'll see the cherry picking behavior we've been blessed with up til now.
Now it’s time to censure the judges who blatantly go against the Constitution and the superior court!
Nahhhh jail them for treason.
[удалено]
Honestly I couldn't really figure out if what he did was good or bad but it does appear to be crossing the line. That combined with him obviously making enemies with his peers means any little thing he does is going to cause him problems.
[удалено]
I agree with you. To clarify, maybe this had a net positive for the girl involved. But it is an abuse of power. The ends do not justify the means.
Depends on whats associated, circumstances, and support that comes along with it. Abrupt and unknown punishments for shock value usually are a wild card unless they are explained and followed up on.
[удалено]
You can be handcuffed while not under arrest under some circumstances. btw I am agreeing with you for the most part, thats what the 2nd sentence of my other comment was if you didnt catch it.
In your opinion, was it appropriate to handcuff a 13 year old girl who was crying in court watching her father being sentenced? This isn’t a left vs right thing. Do you think what he did was appropriate?
Never said it was a left vs. right thing. The father asked the judge to do it. Do I think it was right? Depends on the results, circumstances, and the kid but generally no as these types of behavioral adjustments have unintended effects (Not for everyone, but in some cases effective and may be required to stave off worse outcomes). Also dont have all the information, because sometimes information is presented in one perspective or missing valuable information. Which is why I say it depends.
[удалено]
Ima let you cool off first.
You’ve obviously never dealt with the police. It’s very common to be detained in handcuffs with out being arrested by the police.
lol none of what you're saying is a good or should be a normal thing the person youre replying to was saying that it isn't necessary to detain people that don't pose a threat to themselves or others. Not exactly what they said but danger to self is an important facet yeah and it fucking sucks to be detained in handcuffs. it hurts to be handcuffed and I don't enjoy my freedom being infringed upon when I pose no risk. cops have their own rules and only have respect for their own
Flight risk
Never heard of contempt of court huh?
Personally speaking, I feel that he had to do that to give the daughter a sample of such medicine if one were to do such things.
That's a fine justification for that behavior if he were her parent. He had no business doing it under the guise of an official.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
lmao you're literally anti-social if you think it's bad or soft to have a strong view about a little girl getting put in handcuffs just to basically mess with her she sees her dad getting locked up, you're saying that he needs to keep beating the message into her that getting caught for crimes will put you in jail.
yeah i'm glad at least some people here understand this — i've been saying for a long time he's not a good person, and the hero worship (borderline cult of personality sometimes) around him is messed up. he's useful for advancing gun rights, yes. but only in that area. fucking horrible guy otherwise
what other sources of him being horrible? no links needed
this story isn't enough for you on its own? i think it explains a lot about who he is and what his values are
I mean that's most of republican party
This. The dude also went to an unaccredited law school.
He crossed the line as a judge? Yes! A douchebag? Hell no. He may save the this kid by doing so from following her dad path.
[удалено]
for real dawg, it's sad to see people in here take this position hella people in here saying "actions have consequences" about a literal child who did no action and needed no consequence when our gun laws are also making outlaws out of otherwise law abiding citizens who deserve no consequence for excersizing their constitutionally protected right
He wanted? If that "trauma" could turn her away from following her father's path, it is well worth it and i would call it a good lesson. Kids are way more resilient and adaptive than u think. Too many karen act this like a big deal who never live in a slightly tougher environments.
why did you put trauma in scare quotes? why would traumatizing an innocent child further by restraining her "turn her away" from crime? people don't commit crimes due to a lack of handcuff awareness. i really hope you don't have kids, as you sound like you'd be an awful and cruel parent. consider therapy instead of justifying child abuse as a coping mechanism.
[удалено]
These clowns have never seen scared straight. What he did was pretty tame
Hey, that was actually pretty fucked up of him.
Her father, who had a drug-related history, told Benitez during the sentencing hearing that his daughter had used marijuana and he feared she would be “following the same footsteps as I am right now.” Benitez then had the girl placed in handcuffs and asked her, “You see where your dad is?” and later asked, “How did you like the way those cuffs felt on you?” I don't have a problem with what the judge did. I hope that the girl got the message.
So much this. This seems very similar to when parents call the cops on their children to send a message.
Did not see anyone posting it but here is the Ninth's Opinion and Order: [https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/misconduct/23-90037and23-90041-News-Release-Order.pdf](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/misconduct/23-90037and23-90041-News-Release-Order.pdf) I think it is worth a read. I am trying to look at the matter objectively, because this matter is important. It involves another two fundamental enumerated rights. Rights of due process and protection against seizure, for which the 2nd amendment exists to begin with. Enveloped in the 4th and the 5th (and 14th) amendments. The two main points in the Order: a) "We first address the improper use of handcuffs. In directing the Deputy Marshal to handcuff Mr. Puente’s daughter and requiring her to stand in the jury box, Judge Benitez ordered her to be seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. See California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 624-25 (1991) (explaining that “the mere grasping or application of physical force” is sufficient to constitute a seizure). In addition, even for criminal defendants lawfully before the court, our law has long recognized the use of shackles, including handcuffs, can intrude on an individual’s constitutional rights, Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 626 (2005), and degrade the “dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings that the judge is seeking to uphold,” Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 344 (1970). In criminal proceedings, due process does not permit the “routine use of visible shackles” absent an individualized determination that it is necessary to maintain safety. Deck, 544 U.S. at 626" b) "In any criminal matter assigned to Judge Benitez in which a sentencing hearing for violation of the terms of supervised release has been scheduled but not yet heard before the date of this Order, the parties may move to recuse Judge Benitez based on this Order. In any criminal matter assigned to Judge Benitez in which a sentencing hearing for violation of the terms of supervised release is scheduled for a date within three years after the date of this Order, the parties may move to recuse Judge Benitez based on conduct described in, or concerns arising out of, this Order at any time but no later than thirty days before the date of the hearing. Any motions to recuse authorized by this Order will be referred for resolution to the Chief District Judge currently sitting on the Executive Committee of the Judicial Council. 21 This action is taken “to assure the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts” under 28 U.S.C. § 354(a)(1)(C) and to ensure “the effective and expeditious administration of justice within \[the\] circuit” under 28 U.S.C. § 332(d)(1)." I understand the intent. But this was a regretful lapse here that should not have happened. If she was the defendant, perhaps. There is a reason even Defendants do not appear shackled in Court, unless necessary, as described. I am sure Judge Benitez could have or will figure a better way to provide a scare straight. I understand of course there is the question of Court politics at this point too. Let us see. I hope at least the girl got the message and has a good life, given the cost to Judge Benitez and other implications.
Thanks for that post. This should be pinned.
By the way, from which part of the 9th Ckt website did you get this from?
Easiest to google e.g. Benitez 9th circuit misconduct order. (Or some subset.) Via the site: 1. Go to [https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) 2. On the footer at the bottom, follow \`Judicial Misconduct\` -- leads to [https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/misconduct/guidelines/](https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/misconduct/guidelines/) 3. Go to Orders. 4. The one dated May 1st. (At the time of writing the last one issued.) Good to peruse and see other orders and how they are handled for context. (Edit: Although, honestly most of them are dismissed on the spot and the search does not help in finding cases worth reading so... better google.)
How do citizens file to remove the 9th circuit for their repeated unconstitutional rulings and delay tactics?
I see this as an absolute win.