Legal News

NJ Appellate Court Orders New Hearing Over ?Shady? Issue

By Ashby Jones

Remember that slightly cringe-worthy episode a couple years back involving President Bush and a sunglasses-wearing reporter? In attempt at some good-natured fun, President Bush ribbed a reporter about his wearing sunglasses on a cloudy day. Thing was, the reporter had an eye condition that required he wear them, a fact that triggered a presidential apology.

We were reminded of that story today when we came across a bizarre New Jersey Law Journal story involving a Garden State judge who became, in the words of the story, “obsessed” with a sex offender’s wearing sunglasses in court. Yesterday, a state appellate court ordered a new hearing for the offender over the lower court judge’s remarks. Click here for the link.

The backstory: S.B.M., who is mentally retarded and an alcoholic and has a history of violent sex crimes, has been involuntarily confined since 2003, subject to annual review under New Jersey’s Sexually Violent Predator Act. At a December 2007 hearing, a forensic psychiatrist was testifying about S.B.M.’s mental condition when Essex County Superior Court Judge Serena Perretti interrupted: “Doctor, is there any reason why [he has to] wear those black glasses?” The doctor reportedly demurred, but Perretti repeatedly told S.B.M. to remove the glasses. Each time, S.B.M. told the judge he had a medical condition that required he wear them. The doctor ultimately checked S.B.M.’s medical records and told the judge that “tinted lenses were medically necessary.”

But Perretti wasn’t amused, stating that “use of black glasses in courtrooms are universally considered to be threatening gestures.” She ruled that civil commitment for S.B.M. should continue.

But a ruling yesterday threw the continued confinement into question. Wrote two Appellate Division judges: “The issue of the dark glasses was trivial, it had no relevance to the issue of S.B.M.’s continued confinement. . . . But, it showed the judge’s unwillingness to believe S.B.M., even when his statement that he had a medical form was corroborated. It also calls into question the judge’s ability to conduct a fair hearing.”

S.B.M.’s lawyer, Deputy Public Advocate Joan Van Pelt, says she is trying to schedule an expedited second hearing. She declined to comment on the ruling or discuss S.B.M.’s history. The attorney general’s office did not return telephone messages.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on September 04, 2008 (boomark / email).