Our hinterlands correspondent, Kathleen Casey, reports that Niagara Falls City Court Judge Robert Restaino lost his bid to retain his robes in a decision issued by the Court of Appeals yesterday.  Prior coverage of Restaino’s antics are here, here, here and here.

Up to now, we’ve been working with relatively spartan information about what exactly happened on March 11, 2005, the day that a cellphone rang in Restaino’s domestic violence courtroom.  The decision provides the details, and the scenario is uglier than previously understood.

One defendant, for example, exhorted petitioner to rethink his approach to an otherwise legitimate courtroom concern that could be handled differently, stating: “I think the more people you send to jail, [the] less likely [the] culprit is to come forward,” to which petitioner responded: “he’ll go right to jail with everybody else.” In other instances, one defendant pleaded that he had a doctor’s appointment he would miss if jailed; others pleaded that they would lose their new jobs, that they did not have the resources to post bail. Others pleaded for simple fairness, exclaiming that “this ain’t right,” to which petitioner acknowledged: “You’re right, it ain’t right. Ain’t right at all.” Another had a scheduled appointment for counseling pursuant to an imposed condition, while another had his mother “in surgery [that] morning.” Finally, another pleaded that he had a bi-weekly scheduled visit with his “little girl” that he would miss if jailed. These pleas fell on deaf ears.

Restaino called every defendant on the calendar and, one by one, imposed or raised their bail, eschewing their arguments and pleas.  He then called the defendants whose cases had been called before the cellphone rang and raised their bails as well, assuring that every defendant in that courtroom would be returned to custody that day. 

Restaino had a policy that defendants were required to remain in the courtroom after their case was called until he had completed the calendar for the day.  This is quite unusual, in my experience.  I’ve never heard of a judge who keeps defendants captive for the day after their case has been heard.  Had they been allowed to leave, the 11 defendants whose cases were recalled would have been long gone.  Instead, they were still present and subject to their bail being increased to hold them.

One by one, Restaino individually jailed defendants, despite their explanations of how this would impact their lives.  He had 46 chances to rethink his bizarrely improper abuse of power.  He refused to relent 46 times.

We often talk about how a judge is like a god in his courtroom.  Restaino was an angry, irrational god, swollen with his power.  Over the perceived disrespect and breach of decorum, this demi-god jailed 46 people, one by one. [Edit: This is the money quote of the opinion, and genius that I am, I left it out]

[B]y 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.

A commenter, Peter Calabrese, (who I believe to be a Priest) posted following the Court of Appeals decision but apparently unaware that the decision had issued, stated:

So you are 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.

You miss the point.  We don’t show mercy by returning those who abuse their power to office.  He was denied a privilege, to sit in judgment of others.  He was not sent to prison.  He was not compelled to suffer the same consequences he levied on others who had nothing wrong.  Restaino showed no mercy whatsoever, but he also showed an unfathomable level of callousness toward others.  You don’t get to jail 46 people and expect to be allowed back on the bench.

The cellphone person is not to blame for Restaino’s psychotic behavior.  Nor is Restaino’s behavior legitimized by anyone else’s impropriety.  This man was a judge.  This man’s actions were abhorrent.  So now he’s publicly humiliated?  What a shame.  Where is your sympathy for the 46 defendants he jailed?

In light of the detailed information provided in the Court of Appeals decision, Restaino’s conduct was so utterly over the top that there could be no other reasonable penalty.   Restaino had to go.