Thanking Jesus in Court Lands Man in Jail

[FreedummyRing]

Updated:2006-07-15 13:48:31

AP
HONOLULU (July 15) - Junior Stowers raised his hands and exclaimed, "Thank you, Jesus!" in court last month when he was acquitted by a jury of abusing his son.


But his joy was short-lived when Judge Patrick Border held him in contempt of court for the "outburst" and threw him in jail.


Stowers, 47, sat in the courtroom and a cellblock for about six hours until the judge granted him a hearing on the contempt charge and released him.


The judge at a July 7 hearing dropped the contempt charge, a petty misdemeanor that carries up to 30 days in jail. Court minutes said Border had realized Stowers' trial lawyer did not have time to tell Stowers the judge had ordered both sides not to show emotion when the verdict was announced.


Stowers was charged with hitting his 15-year-old son with a broomstick in January. The misdemeanor charge of abusing a household member carries a sentence of up to a year in jail.


During trial, the boy recanted, according to court records. The boy instead testified his brother hit him with a car door, a story his brother verified in court.


Stowers couldn't be reached for comment. But his attorney in the contempt case, Deputy Public Defender Susan Arnett, said he wasn't treated fairly.


"I don't think there's anything about saying 'Thank you, Jesus' that rises to the level of contemptuous behavior in this case," she told The Honolulu Advertiser.


WHAT HAPPEN TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH?????

 

[Maria]

Yeah, that's sad. The world will hate Jesus first before they hate true believers who believe in Jesus Christ as their God. When they hate true believers, it means that they REALLY hate Jesus Christ, not the true believers themselves.

It's harmless to exclaim " Thank you, Jesus ! " I don't see anythin' wrong with it. But, if he reallys hit his son with broomstick -- then, he should apologize to his son and ask for forgiveness.

 

[ismi]

He wasn't penalized for saying "Thank You, Jesus", he was penalized for an inappropriate outburst in court. And it was overturned quickly.

 

[LuciaDisturbed]

It had nothing with what he said. It was the way he acted that got him held in contempt. Both sides in court were ordered NOT to show emotions when the verdict was announced.

 

[pek1]

He wasn't penalized for saying "Thank You, Jesus", he was penalized for an inappropriate outburst in court. And it was overturned quickly.

And the judge should be ousted because he spit on the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment . . . Freedom of Speech. Would hate to be that judge on Judgment Day! :Oops:

 

[pek1]

Yeah, that's sad. The world will hate Jesus first before they hate true believers who believe in Jesus Christ as their God. When they hate true believers, it means that they REALLY hate Jesus Christ, not the true believers themselves.

It's harmless to exclaim " Thank you, Jesus ! " I don't see anythin' wrong with it. But, if he reallys hit his son with broomstick -- then, he should apologize to his son and ask for forgiveness.

 

[deafdyke]

Pete, hold on a sec.......I thought u would see it our way. He was censored for the OUTBURST not the CONTENT of the outburst! If he'd said Thank you Zeus, or Thank you any other Higher Diety, he would have been disciplned the same!

 

[Maria]

Pete, hold on a sec.......I thought u would see it our way. He was censored for the OUTBURST not the CONTENT of the outburst! If he'd said Thank you Zeus, or Thank you any other Higher Diety, he would have been disciplned the same!

It doesn't matter, if it was an outburst or not. He has the right to exclaim to thank Jesus. It could be answered to his rightfully prayers. In Heaven, there's more LOUDER to exclaim when one person repents. No one sentences God's angels for their outburst !

The judge has no right to give that man a penalty for his outburst behavior. It was that man's emotion to show his relief after hearin' the verdict. And, what's more... it wasn't that man's fault for not havin' his trial lawyer to tell him not to show emotions. His trial lawyer DID NOT have time to tell him. Soo, whose fault was it ? Hmm ?

 

[ismi]

The judge has no right to give that man a penalty for his outburst behavior. It was that man's emotion to show his relief after hearin' the verdict. And, what's more... it wasn't that man's fault for not havin' his trial lawyer to tell him not to show emotions. His trial lawyer DID NOT have time to tell him. Soo, whose fault was it ? Hmm ?

The court is a place of dignity, and proper decorum needs to be observed; the job of the judge is to ensure that this is the case. His lawyer didn't tell him, true, and that's why the contempt charge was overturned. Personally, I think it should be obvious that an outburst is inappropriate, but I don't see that the scenario as it occurred infringed upon his rights. In fact, that's why we do have due process - to make sure all the facts are looked at.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

The court is a place of dignity, and proper decorum needs to be observed; the job of the judge is to ensure that this is the case. His lawyer didn't tell him, true, and that's why the contempt charge was overturned. Personally, I think it should be obvious that an outburst is inappropriate, but I don't see that the scenario as it occurred infringed upon his rights. In fact, that's why we do have due process - to make sure all the facts are looked at.

I agree with you! The issue isn't so much what he said. It was that he said anything in the first place. He should have drawn the contempt charge whether or not he said...

"Lets Party!", or "Praise the Lord!"; it doesn't matter.

I am glad that the court recognized the lawyer's screw up, though. It's a lawyer's responsiblity to inform his client of the proper way to conduct oneself in a courtroom. The fact that the lawyer failed to do so should be noted, and I'm glad it was.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

It had nothing with what he said. It was the way he acted that got him held in contempt. Both sides in court were ordered NOT to show emotions when the verdict was announced.

GMTA! Exactly! It's not what he said. It was that he spoke, period. In a court of law one is to show utmost respect for the judge and jury. You usually aren't allowed to speak unless you're spoken to. When a judge or jury renders a verdict in a case, the defendant and the observers are usually forewarned not to have any outburst during the proceeding. They are usually told that they will be removed if such an outburst occurs. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with the penalty at all. The fact that his statement included a christian reference doesn't matter.

 

[rabbit]

I have a feeling the judge probably thought the man WAS guilty for hitting his son, but didn't have enough evidence to convict him, so when the man yelled "thank you Jesus" the judge saw his opportunity to still punish the man for what he'd done.

 

[netrox]

Geesh, some Christians take it so wrong!

 

[VamPyroX]

It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It has to do with respect and being quiet.

In court, you're supposed to refrain from expressing obvious emotions or outbursts when the verdict is called. It sometimes leads to other problems such as anger or attitudes by the other visitors.

If you stood up and yelled in a crowded church, what do you think would happen? You would probably be asked to leave.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It has to do with respect and being quiet.

In court, you're supposed to refrain from expressing obvious emotions or outbursts when the verdict is called. It sometimes leads to other problems such as anger or attitudes by the other visitors.

If you stood up and yelled in a crowded church, what do you think would happen? You would probably be asked to leave.

Yup!

 

[pek1]

It doesn't matter, if it was an outburst or not. He has the right to exclaim to thank Jesus. It could be answered to his rightfully prayers. In Heaven, there's more LOUDER to exclaim when one person repents. No one sentences God's angels for their outburst !

The judge has no right to give that man a penalty for his outburst behavior. It was that man's emotion to show his relief after hearin' the verdict. And, what's more... it wasn't that man's fault for not havin' his trial lawyer to tell him not to show emotions. His trial lawyer DID NOT have time to tell him. Soo, whose fault was it ? Hmm ?