Legal News

For Cell Phone Tirade, NY High Court Rings Up Judge Restaino

By Dan Slater

An admiring and supportive bar couldn’t keep the dress-wearing judge on the bench, and neither will it prevent the ouster of Judge Robert Restaino (pictured). Yesterday, New York’s highest court upheld the recommended removal of Restaino, a domestic violence court judge in Niagara Falls, for the cell-phone inspired tirade that ended with Restaino (Buffalo law) sending 46 defendants to jail when no one would admit to possessing the cell phone that rang in his courtroom. Here’s a story from the NYLJ.

In 6-0 decision, the Court of Appeals concluded that, “By indiscriminately committing into custody 46 defendants, petitioner deprived them of their liberty without due process, exhibited insensitivity, indifference and a callousness so reproachable that his continued presence on the Bench cannot be tolerated.”

Here’s what happened: In 2005 Restaino, while presiding over domestic-violence cases, heard a phone ring in his courtroom. He told those present that “every single person is going to jail in this courtroom” unless the phone was turned over. Restaino then posted a security officer at the door while other officers unsuccessfully tried to find the phone. Frustrated at his inability to find the owner of the ringing phone, Restaino summarily sent 46 defendants into custody. In February, New York’s state commission on judicial conduct recommended removing Restaino for what it called “two hours of inexplicable madness” and engaging in behavior resembling “a petty tyrant.”

The court acknowledged Restaino’s “notable contributions to the administration of justice,” and noted that amicus briefs reflect how “well-respected” he is in his community. But the judges added that there are simply some “truly egregious circumstances” in which judicial misconduct cannot be excused, no matter the mitigating factors offered by judges — here, psychological stressors, marital problems and a heavy caseload.

LB Bonus Coverage: Friday morning brings us more in the weird judicial-conduct department: Gustavo Garza, a South Texas justice of the peace, is going to court today to defend himself against a suit from the parents of a 15 year-old girl. Garza reportedly gave the girl’s stepfather a choice of either paying a $500 fine or paddling the girl in open court for skipping school. The father reluctantly used one of the two paddles in Garza’s courtroom. (Here’s the AP story.)

It’s the option that 98 percent of parents choose in his courtroom, said Garza, who calls it lawful.

It’s not much of an option, said the family’s lawyer. “It’s not really a choice when your choice is buying groceries or spanking your child.”

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on June 06, 2008 (boomark / email).