How Hard On Restaino?

You may remember the upstate New York judge who  flipped out when a cellphone went off in his courtroom?  Well, Niagara Falls Judge Robert Restaino now awaits the Court of Appeals decision on his fate. 

After jailing 46 people who had the misfortune of being in his courtroom at the time the phone rang, Restaino became the latest poster boy for judicial intemperance.  The Commission on Judicial Conduct recommended removal for his conduct, except for divorce lawyer Raoul Felder, the Paula Abdul of the commission, who was more concerned for Retaino’s self-esteem than the 46 people he locked up.

As reported by  Carolyn Elefant at Legal Blog Watch, the  New York Law Journal has a story about a sudden outpouring of concern for Restaino.


New York state’s Court of Appeals last week accepted 10 amicus curiae briefs filed by legal, judicial and civic groups, all pleading with the court to spare the job of Niagara Falls City Court Judge Robert M. Restaino.

The amicus briefs cite Restaino’s spotless 12-year judicial record, his standing in the community and the isolated nature of the incident in his courtroom on March 11, 2005, as all weighing in favor of the court reducing his punishment to censure.

To tell the truth, for a Niagara Falls judge to have 10 amici back him up is quite impressive.  Based upon my admittedly biased New York City calculations, that’s one amicus brief for every 2 lawyers in practice above the Bronx.

My earlier information, based upon my spies in the Niagara Falls area, was the Restaino was, shall we say, a bit inflexible as a judge.  He was rather firm in his treatment of people.  He was, in fact, a very self-important judge who was taken with his power and authority.  He ruled with an iron fist.

This could be said of a lot of judges.  And it could also be argued that judges who do not run a tight courtroom are not doing their job.  Courts are not supposed to be fun places, and a well-run court may not be the kind of place you want to hang out for kicks, provided the judge performs her function well otherwise.

So what do we do about Restaino (as if it were up to us)?


Dan Slater at WSJ Law Blog asked readers whether Restaino should face removal for “two hours of inexplicable madness” — and the commenters aren’t very sympathetic towards the judge.

As for [Carolyn], while [she] feels badly for Judge Restaino, ultimately, he’s getting the punishment he deserves.  The 46 defendants who showed up for court to appear in domestic violence cases and wound up in jail didn’t get a second chance.  Why should the judge who put them there?

This is a close call for me.  Not because Restaino’s conduct shows any evidence of self-control or mercy.  It doesn’t.  Not even because he had 12 years of (theoretically) “unblemished” service, a dubious claim as far as I hear.  After all, nobody gets their first murder free.  The biggest factor holding me back from playing the Queen of Hearts is that this is the death penalty for a judge, and it’s hard to condemn a person to the ultimate sanction without certainty that this wasn’t truly aberrational conduct.  In other words, I would cut Restaino more slack than he’d cut the people in his courtroom that day.

But then, sitting in judgment of others isn’t a right.  It’s a privilege, earned on a daily basis.  This excess of zeal on Restaino’s part reflects something deeply disturbing, and gives rise to concerns that this is not the first time he’s lashed out in anger, but merely the first time it’s been publicly recognized.  To this end, I would have to defer to the judgment of the other members of the Judicial Conduct Commission, which is not generally inclined to be terribly harsh to judges. 

If they believe, as they do if we remove Raoul from the mix, that Restaino should not be sitting on the big bench, then it tips the scale in favor of removal.  And given what happened, plus the fears that his harsh decisions toward individuals would never blemish his record, the record is hardly so clear that Restaino deserves any further sympathy. 

One thought on “How Hard On Restaino?

  1. Peter Calabrese

    So you rare in favor of the death penalty for him in the end. All your talk is in the end gibberish. Actually his record had now been blemished regardless of what sanction or lack thereof is applied. He has been publicly humiliated because someone failed to be honest.
    He probably would be a better judge then he already was for the ordeal he has been through.
    I only pray that those passing their judgment on him, no matter how professional that judgment may allege to be, will never meet the same harsh judgment that is being prepared for him.
    Those that condemn him had better never even have a wisp of impropriety about them.
    In a state where the Attorney General undermines the criminal investigation of the governor and pays no cost this is ridiculous. Woe to you New York State you are like the corrupt judges who condemened Susanna.
    None of those who condemn him have never done a favor for someone and thus perverted justice for someone else or those who have not such connections?

    To the person who failed to admit to having that device that day may they realize that they are cowards to the core and hopefully some day when they need a witness to vouch for their innocence none may be found because they lacked the simple decency of a human being.
    If the judgment is sustained then the Court will lose an officer who would have served well.

    Of course your “Bronx bias” snide comment shows that you have no respect for the western part of the state and your prejudice against this part of the state makes you in turn arrogant, conceited and unfit to serve in our court system as well. But apparently more mercy will be shown to you for your prejudices than to him in his faults.

Comments are closed.