蜜桃视频

A Connecticut trial court judge acted within his power to consider and then add three criminal contempt sentences to a murder convict's prison term after the defendant hurled a series of racial and profane attacks at the court when a habeas corpus hearing concluded, the state's highest court ruled Monday.

In a unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Raheem L. Mullins, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that New London Superior Court Judge John M. Newson did not become "personally embroiled" in the proceeding and did not need to find a new judge to preside when he shifted the habeas corpus hearing to a contempt matter. 

"Judicial recusal is necessary only in the unusual case in which the apparent effect of the contemnor's conduct on the judge against whom the contemptuous conduct was levied is such as to indicate that the judge's impartiality or objectivity reasonably may be called into question,'' Justice Mullins noted, quoting , a 1997 Connecticut Supreme Court case.

Faced with the barrage from defendant Gregory Johnson, Judge Newson complied with Sections 1-16 and 1-17 of the Connecticut Practice Book, the state's combined series of evidence, civil procedure and ethics rules, the high state court concluded.

Section 1-16 governs summary criminal contempt hearings when "misbehavior or misconduct" occurs in the court's presence. Section 1-17 requires the proceedings to be deferred when a judge becomes "personally embroiled" in what occurs.

The bar for considering a judge personally embroiled is high, the justices indicated. They concluded that Judge Newson was within his power to add three consecutive six-month contempt sentences to Johnson's underlying prison term.

"A review of the transcript and the audio recording of the hearing reveals that, although the plaintiff repeatedly directed racial slurs and other profanity at the trial court, the court responded to the plaintiff with a calm demeanor, gave repeated warnings to the plaintiff, which he ignored, and offered the plaintiff the opportunity to speak to his counsel privately," Justice Mullins wrote for the court.

"A judge cannot be driven out of a case," he added, quoting , a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case that examined an attack on a judge.

Johnson unsuccessfully argued his punishment should be limited because Judge Newson canceled the habeas corpus proceeding after his first outburst.

The justices disagreed with that claim, finding Johnson still disrupted the court's orderly operations after the habeas hearing formally concluded.

Judge Newson dialed back a potential fourth contempt sentence because he didn't personally hear one of Johnson's comments, the justices ruled.

Though Johnson and his attorney argued during the contempt hearing that he was off his medication and having trouble accessing mental health care in prison, the justices declined to consider Johnson incompetent.  

According to the opinion, Judge Newson was in a proper position to observe Johnson's competence. The trial judge called Johnson "highly intelligent," noting that Johnson "even demonstrated his understanding that a contempt finding would not impact him because he was already serving a life sentence," the justices observed.

Johnson's attorney also did not request a competency hearing, they noted.

According to state prison records, Johnson, 59, was convicted of felony murder and sentenced in 1998. He is eligible for release in 2054, when he is 89, those records show.

Johnson's appellate counsel did not respond to a Law360 request for comment Monday.

The Office of the Chief State's Attorney and the Office of the Attorney General, which together represented the Superior Court as a nominal defendant in Johnson's challenge, did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.

Johnson is represented by James E. Mortimer of the Mortimer Law Firm LLC.

The state is represented by Deputy Assistant State's Attorney Raynald A. Carre of the Office of the Chief State's Attorney's and DeAnn S. Varunes of the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General.

The case is Johnson v. Superior Court, case number SC 21074, in the Connecticut Supreme Court.

--Editing by Janice Carter Brown.