Appeals Court Upholds Judge’s Methods Dealing with Disruptive Defendant

TRENTON – A judge was within his rights to remove a disruptive defendant from court, even though that meant the defendant missed his sentencing on a third-degree charge of theft, an appeals court has found.
The Sept. 3 decision by a three-judge appellate court panel also found that the Superior Court judge acted properly in denying an attempt by the defendant to fire his court-appointed attorney.
In the decision, judges Carmen Messano, Greta Gooden Brown and Lisa Rose found that the Superior Court judge had little choice when faced with a deliberately disruptive defendant, Jamie K. Hayes, which included trying to file complaints against his attorney.
“Throughout the proceedings, defendant’s bizarre and disruptive behavior prompted the judge to take remedial action, including ordering a psychiatric evaluation of defendant, which found him competent to stand trial, issuing an extraction order to compel his appearance in court, and, later, ordering defendant’s removal from the courtroom,” reads the appellate court decision.
“Defendant continuously filed civil motions and asserted that his attorney, Thomas Rossell, a pool attorney, was not representing him properly.”
Hayes had accused his first attorney under the federal bankruptcy code, according to the court documents, and other areas of law that the judge said had no impact on a criminal case. According to the appellate decision, another attorney representing Hayes faced accusations of treason, “paper terrorism” and violating the Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1778. For those not up on the Barbary Wars, that was an agreement between the new American republic and the emperor of Morocco.
Hayes was accused of theft. According to the trial records, on April 12, 2015, a woman reported her handbag stolen from a boardwalk arcade in Wildwood. In addition to other items, she said it contained an Olive Garden gift card and her wedding and engagement rings, which were worth about $14,000.
The arcade manager gave police a copy of the surveillance video, court documents state, showing a man leaving the arcade with a handbag and about a week later, the manager saw a man of the same description on the boardwalk.
The manager took a photo and contacted police.
When Police Officer Spencer Smith stopped the man, later identified as Hayes, he had two rings on his right pinky that matched the description of the stolen rings, as well as an Olive Garden gift card made out to the victim.
At the trial, the court documents state, Hayes admitted he was the man in the video, but denied stealing the handbag, claiming he was asked by a different woman for help finding her bag. She rewarded him with the gift card, he told the jury, and sold him the two rings for $25 so she could get gas.
With prior convictions for weapon and drug-related offenses, Hayes was looking at five years in prison.
Hayes brought up the possibility of a conflict of interest with his defense attorney May 3, 2016. The court said he gave a series of incoherent and non-responsive answers as the judge questioned him.
“On numerous occasions, defendant requested that he be allowed to represent himself, requests that were denied by the judge after questioning defendant and determining that defendant did not understand the nature and consequences of his request to waive counsel,” the decision reads.
In June of 2016, the defense attorney also asked to be off the case, saying his client refused to participate in his defense or to listen to his attorney’s advice.
The judge said no, arguing that the defendant was trying to delay and manipulate the trial.
After the trial, in January of 2017, Hayes had a newly assigned attorney, Stephen Patrick. At that point, the judge said if he had approved Hayes’ request, he would have ceded control of the courtroom to the defendant.
The Appellate Court agreed with the Superior Court judge, stating that there was no significant risk that the defendant’s representation would be harmed in a material way. The attorney continued to represent Hayes, including filing a motion for dismissal of the charges.
Hayes faced sentencing Jan. 23, 2017, accompanied by Patrick, his third attorney.
“During the proceeding, defendant continued his disruptive behavior by engaging in a largely unintelligible rant during which he objected to the proceedings, objected to the court’s jurisdiction over him, and objected to Patrick’s representation, claiming he had filed a complaint against Patrick in 2007 notwithstanding the fact that he had never served Patrick with the complaint,” reads the posted appellate decision.
According to the ruling, there are three constitutionally permissible ways for a judge to handle a disruptive and unmanageable defendant: cite him with contempt, remove him from the courtroom or have him bound and gagged.
Defendants have the right to be present at each step of a trial, the court acknowledged, including at sentencing, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the right is not absolute. According to the ruling, when given the chance to return to the court or to tell his attorney what he wanted to be said on his behalf, Hayes instead banged his head against the wall of the holding cell and was returned to county jail.
“We find no error in the judge’s response to defendant’s continuous unruly behavior and no basis to intervene,” the ruling states.
To contact Bill Barlow, email bbarlow@cmcherald.com.