The judge didn't want the truth. HE COULDN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!! Jutz ordered that code red...

Cyanideangel - he's an idiot because he didn't act the way you would have ?

Judge Gibbs is the best judge Walworth County has to offer

The idiot got one day in jail woopdee doo

I must have missed this...HE IS RIGHT THO!!!
Ive seen it many times

Viva, I didnt know we were being graded on grammer.

Ever thought some people suck at typing?


BTW (means by the way) there are things called 'paragraphs'. ;-)

One situation here begs for an answer...
.
Gibbs said. "But I'll tell you one thing, you're not going anywhere. You're going to sit here and watch the whole trial in the back of the room."
.
This seems to be a "sentence" without due process or a conviction???
.
Perhaps this type of action is a contributing factor to citizen cynicism?

Dignity and respect are not one-way streets. Expressing contempt and being legally in contempt of court are two very different things. Gazette: Stay tuned.

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven...a time to keep silence, and a time to speak...

I have been following all the comments posted regarding this issue and I have noticed two things . . . one, many of the commentators either can’t spell or don’t proofread their work and two, those with all the opinions were not present in the courtroom so they are basing their opinions on an article with comments taken out of context and hearsay. The newspaper reporter was not present and his headline is not entirely accurate. I was present in the courtroom and the juror was not jailed for voicing his opinion. He was also given more than one warning that his behavior was not appropriate. In fact, when he was excused during the voir dire process, he was directed to remain in the courtroom for the trial as an observer and it was his behavior following that directive that landed him in jail on contempt charges. Everyone is entitled to their opinion which is why prospective jurors go through the voir dire process. Strikes are given to both sides in an effort to select a panel that includes jurors of all ages, ethnic backgrounds and various occupational and life experiences. Jury panels may consist of students, homemakers, businessmen or women, factory workers, seasonal workers, medical professionals, law enforcement, teachers, retired people or even judges. What was wrong about this juror’s actions is not that he voiced his opinion, but that he tried to influence the opinion of all of the other prospective jurors by his words, actions and demeanor. Had he simply stated he felt he was unable to serve as a juror based on his own experiences and prejudiced beliefs, or asked to speak to the judge privately in chambers about his concerns with counsel and the defendant present, he would have been excused and we wouldn’t be wasting time speculating on the how’s and why’s.

Sarah - that made me chuckle. :)

THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY VERY FEW PEOPLE HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE'S . MAKES YOU WONDER HOW MANY OTHER PEOPLE HAVE HAD SAME SERVICE IN HIS COURT .

I wonder if Mr Jutz told Judge Gibbs he was number 1 .

Stand back please, forum folks ... OBAMA VICTORY TRAIN coming through ... excuse me ... OBAMA VICTORY TRAIN headed this way ...

It's amusing to me how easily Judicial figures let their emotions get the best of them. It's also amusing to me that the Judge operated with the exact same disregard for the law as the man had described. Well Done, Judge. Nice job at bringing a positive light to the courts in Walworth county.

RUserious, correct! It's called people with agendas! Compromising right and wrong to fit with what works best for the individual or entity, rather than what works for the many! It's called greed and selfishness. It's called the disconnected American mindset!

How dare we tell a taxpaying citizen with constitutional rights, to sit down and shut up, and not voice a true opinion, whether socially acceptable or not, when a judge asks him for an opinion. I'm sorry, but in no way do I find this right or just. And my tax money is being spent on someone with a "bad attitude" or an unpopular opinion of the system being sent to jail for the night, instead an actual criminal?? Are you kidding me???? Though i wasn't in the courtroom, no, and I didn't see Mr Jutz "non-verbal" communication, the pure fact that he was jailed for using his constitutional right to free speech, really DOES prove his point exactly! I've seen judges use "non-verbal" communication by rolling their eyes at people. throwing their hands up in the air, raising their voices and practically throwing files at their clerks out of frustration, does that mean that they should be prosecuted because they obviously feel "annoyed" enough with some of the "societal slime" to not give them fair judicial proceedings? Ok, so some people really should learn when/how to handle themselves in a more professional manner, but it is NOT a CRIME to be stupid. Nor is it to say "I don't like police or the system", whether you're in the courtroom or not. It just isn't. If you ask me, yes a fine would have sufficed if he was truly being irate or uncontrolable, but taking it to the extreme of wasting valuable tax money to house this NON-violent "criminal" in the county jail for a night, is absurd!!!

optimism: "Too many people don't pay attention to eachother."
Ain't it the truth! Like the present mud on the presidential candidates, like the stories on local GM news (and workers), like many current topics, people cherry pick (or convolute) bits of stories they've heard to make it fit what they have to say, but close their eyes and ears to things that don't support their preconceived notions.

NONVERBAL communication, as said by someone already, is definately the majority of our comminication with eachother. None of us are sure what this man said "without" words, but interpretation is also a key element, and a person cannot be judged for their nonverbal, because without clarification, a person's interpretation is only true to them. My husband hates it when I read his "nonverbal". He always says 'quit getting so philisophical on me..'. But truly, if we all paid more attention to nonverbal communication, we would be more apt to understand our friends and family, with clarification of course. Too many people don't pay attention to eachother.

This judge needs to remember, we don't always get the answer we want. That is part of being human. If that is what he wants, then join the world of droids. Shheesh.

VEGIEDELITE...OMG....that reminded me of when I lived up in Columbus WI years ago, and had a library book that was over due. GUESS WHAT? I was served papers for a court date. Thank goodness it was a book I forgot about and was able to find it. I don't know what would have happened to me if I didn't find it. THe worst part.....under "public record" in the paper....yep, my name was listed. They still do this I guess. Putting people in jail for an overdue library book. Isn't that rediculous?

The judge allowed the attorney to ask the question. If he did not think it was a fit question, he would have stopped it.

A number of people need to re-read the article. It was not Judge Gibbs that asked the question. It was one of the Attorneys

Perfect example of what he was thrown in jail for, a victim of his own complaint. What a bunch of crap. So much for his freedom of speech.

Does Judge Gibbs jail for overdue library books too? He knew the type of answer Mr. Jutz was going to give him before he even asked the question. He set Jutz up to make an example of him while abusing his power. Mr. Jutz was providing a civil duty and ended up in jail. Give me a break.........

Heck, Judge Judy isn't this bad! Best to speak your piece to her.

just for the record, Mr. Jutz looks like Dennis Hopper!

Like I said, if the judge is so concerned about the words Mr. Jutz uttered in that courtroom during jury selection, the real problem lies in the operation of the jury selection process. They've been selecting jury's for years now, and all of a sudden this is an issue?? Tell me this hasn't happened before!! The guilty people are the one's that allowed Mr Jutz into the selection process if you want to be honest about it! Judge Gibbs I have no knowledge of to base an opinion on, but, Judge Kennedy, a power hungry tyrant with no soul!

AND of course Jutz can NOT be reached for comment-he's sitting in the county jail!!

This man expressed his constitutional right to his opinion. He also was asked a direct question. It sounds like Judge Gibbs was just angry.
Can we say LAWSUIT???

What a joke.. Obviously the judge here is a jerk on a power trip. Wish he would come down as hard on real criminals. Heck there's probably people with multiple DWI's who don't do an honest 24 hours in jail.

No doubt Mr. Jutz displayed some attitude and expressed disrespect for the legal system. That theme comes through from those who were interviewed in the story. I do not know Mr. Jutz, but my guess is he has a history of making poor life choices. Was his behavior contemptable? Yes. Was it a judicious use of authority to fine Jutz and take away his liberty for a day? I am not so sure. The Judge should have given him a stern warning he was headed for trouble if he continued with his disparaging remarks.
*
Most of us understand the rules of the game and give the courts the deference they deserve. In small part, that is due to the tremendous power our society gives to judges to take liberty and property from people. I believe that in large part it is due to the faith we have in the fairness and dignity of the legal system. I expect Mr. Jutz will show more restraint in the future should he be so unlucky as to appear in front of Judge Gibbs again for any reason. For the rest of us, respect is earned, not demanded.

villalamesville damn straight i got my mind right boss please don't hit me anymore.

Sounds like someone needs to retire, or, at the least, be censured. BTW, I am talking about the judge. This article makes the situation sound as if the judge coerced and fabricated a situation to the extent of a definite abuse of power.

The judge has been watching too much Boston Legal.

So much for the First Amendment.

O.K. I get that Mr. Jutz was weaseling out of his jury duty. If the man doesn't want to serve, how impartial can he be expected to be? Isn't that what these interviews are supposed to determine, whether or not a prospective juror will be impartial?
That said, you have to question the integrity of the judge. He may well have a right to find anyone within the courthouse in contempt at any time for whatever reason he may see fit, but in this case, you have to wonder about the judge's temperament even more than that of Mr. Jutz. Yes, I'm sure that Mr. Jutz was irritating, probably aggravating and maybe even outrageous. But the judge is in a position to evaluate the behavior of defendants who are similarly provoked by the rude behavior of others. How can he hold defendants to a high standard of behavior regarding their temper when he can be so easily provoked into losing his?
Censure would be joke for this. A panel of judges evaluating the actions of a judge in a case like this would be like having a panel of businessmen evaluate whether Ebenezer Scrooge is a skinflint.

Donegeal how bout tour own little world

75% of communication is non-verbal. The other 25% is content.

Now try to figure out what happened.

shdow5 its like Judge Welker one day he would be cookies and milk the next day he was in a hanging mood.

Just the idea that someone would choose the words he did, shows lack of respect to the court and the jury process. All jury candidates are briefly given information on the judicial premiliminary process. He obviously (IMO)came to court with a "chip on his shoulder"....

Though none of us posting here were present, I'd be willing to bet his body language and vocal intonations spoke VOLUMES regarding his "opinion"....

Just as someone else brought up... a simple yes or no would have sufficed. Did the Judge go overboard? Well of course... but who knows how many idiots he has to deal with on a day-to-day basis? Perhaps the lack of respect was just the "icing on the cake" for Judge Gibbs.

I attended his court years ago as a witness... I must say, he seemed quite pleasant and fair minded. I wouldn't want to trade places with ANY Judge nowadays though... The "societal slime" they must have to face everyday would be exhausting.

This guy was just in the wrong place at the wrong time / with a bad attitude. Sorry for him, do your time and shut your mouth next time!!!

This is another black eye for the Justice system. Hey as long as you go along with the status quote you are an exceptible citizen, but if you have a mind and speak the truth from your heart you can go to jail? If somebody asked this registered voter/tax paying citizen of the United States to explain why he felt the way he does, they should not punish him, he could have kept quiet and rendered a false judgment from the jury box but he is a honest man and gave an honest answer. No matter how bitter the taste he kept to his convictions.

No-- Krystal A. Hart, this young lady needs help from someone ankle bracelet -alcohol treatment-jail time- what do you think ?

Another hardened criminal behind bars for the day. Way to loose focus once again in the court room...I'll show you who is the judge thought M.Gibbs I'm betting.
If you can't handle the broader general public, get off the bench. People come from all walks of life including ones with a negative opinion of the legal system.

WHAT HAPPEN TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH??????? WOW. This is just another reason that the jails are overcrowed and people don't believe in the system. I hope I never have a chance to tell a judge what I think I would be in jail for years by the time I got done. Ok he should have answered yes or no but the judge asked!!!!!!!!!!!

OOOOPPPPSSS..I meant to say,what happened to this man was just proof of his point.

This is ridiculous, and this man just proof of his point.

Jail? The judge wants the taxpayers to pay for this man to go to JAIL because he was disrespected? Where is the respect for the taxpayer? Give him a fine and send him on his way but sheesh, going to jail makes NO sense.

*This is the type of justice that happens in Red China . and also in Walworth County*

How do you explain Krystal A. Hart, then?

Sorta like, "The beatings will continue until morale improves"....

I know Michael Gibbs and consider him to be an insightful and fair judge. Ironically, the inadvertent effect of his order tends to validate Mr. Jutz's assertions far more than it does to discredit them. Judge Gibbs could have quickly and easily proven him dead wrong, in at least this one instance. Whoops.

"How dare you criticize our judicial system! Off with your head!"

I've known Dave and some of his brothers for years, in motorcycling activities. They're good people who have no contempt for anything but idiocy. He spoke the truth about LEOs stretching the truth to make a case, and needing money to get justice with a good lawyer. The truth will set you free?

This is the can of worms that get opened when govt. is allowed to negotiate the constitution of this country. When rights and principles surrounding those rights are compromised, this is the end product. I'm not saying the comments by Mr. Jutz were warranted or unwarranted. There is such a thing as tact and being accountable for your own actions. What he said during jury selection doesn't warrant jail time or a fine! This is another example of the govt. playing God again! The problem is within the selection process if you really want to get down to the nitty gritty! That and the people who created the process! If no guidelines were layed out and explained to each prospect so they understood the ramifications of their words or actions, that would really take the cake in this one!

This is the type of justice that happens in Red China . and also in Walworth County

the fat ol' judge would'nt budge

First let me say that I don't believe the judge should have jailed him. I believe that there are probably other ways in which he could have handled it. But I don't know that it was as much an issue of freedom of speech as how he exercised that freedom and where he chose to excercise it. A reasonable person could describe his feelings of the criminal justice system without being described by others as "boisterous," "obnoxious," "abrupt and rude," "on a tirade" and making a "big fool" of themselves. And most reasonable people know that behavior like that is not tolerated in a court of law whether you are just answering a question or not.

It would appear that Mr. Jutz was experiencing verbal diarrhea. When asked during jury selection whether he'd had a bad experience with police, he should have responded either "yes" or "no." The lawyers or the judge could ask follow up questions if they were so inclined.

Instead, Mr. Jutz appears to have made a broad generalization that seems to indicate that he feels *all* members of the police are corrupt: "Well, it's pretty much the police will say and do anything they want to make a case, and the courts aren't really fair about it. Because if they got money, you can get out of it." Making a sweeping generalizations when a simple one-word answer would have done is just plain stupid.

Case dismissed!

I think the judge stepped over the line of necessity here. The man expressed his opinion of the court SYSTEM generally. Technically that is "contempt" of the courts, but he was required to respond and he gave his opinion. It was not specifically disrespectful of the judge nor did it clearly refer to the case.
.
I don't think it will even lead to a censure, though. It's that close to the line. It may have been technically justifiable but it wasn't necessary.

no matter if it's the courtroom or even on the streets, honesty is something that isn't commonly found... why should it matter as to wether a person's in a courtroom or on the streets?? belittle a person for sharing his honest views to a judge?? see, what people are neglecting to see in this story is that the wording only shows what the paper wants its readers to see, which, in return makes Jutz look like an idiot in front of the judge, when it was the judge himself that overreacted on a simple viewpoint... there was no threat to authority made... a man tells the truth from what he's experienced, and the judge holds him in contempt, sends him to jail, and fines him... would anyone like to be in his shoes if you were only being HONEST basing if off of what your experiences were?? we all are entitled to our opinions, but do any of us get thrown in jail?? NO...why?? because, many of us are afraid to say anything truthful towards someone with higher power in our society, for there's always the dark cloud of not wanting to contend with uncertain consequences looming overhead...

Would you want this individual on a jury if a defendant had harmed you or a member of your family?

It may be a civil duty, but this guy was being honest, he did not think he could be a fair jury person. Do you really want someone on the jury that is going to let someone off because of their experience??

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want. The courtroom is very formal and definately not the place to get on your soapbox. The guy was obviously trying to get out of jury duty by being a dumba$$.

Strictly commenting on the words themselves, it seems like the judge jumped the gun here, and in some ways, doing what he did supports what the juror was trying to say about the system--AS HE KNOWS IT...HOWEVER--Jury selection was no time for the juror to get on his soapbox. I also think in a case like this, the judge should have at least warned the juror that he was flirting with contempt, and to square himself away, or face the consequences. On the other hand, since I wasn't there, I will defer to the judge's discretion in this case.

There is no freedom of speech in a State Circuit Court! Strict sets of rules apply to all inlcluding attorneys, prosecutors, and yes prospective jurors. Remember its a civil DUTY to serve as a juror and being a smart mouth or trying to get kicked off a jury so you dont have to serve doesnt equate as freedom of speech.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Where does it say you can stand up in court and make an ass of yourself?

ok, just because Jutz spoke truth from his experiences with local authorities, he's incarcerated and fined?? there is no such thing as freedom of speech anymore... much like there's no such thing as fighting back in self defense for it is now viewed as battery/disorderly conduct, no matter which way it's presented... how can anyone speak freely when there are so many ways (i.e. political correctness, racism, discrimination, sexism) to twist what is said to be used against the person(s) speaking??

Although I don't agree with the judge, I can see what happened here. Jutz made the judge feel disrespected. The judge then felt compelled to show his authority. The judge was probably having a bad day to begin with, then this guy "goes off" on him. This is just stupid all the way around.

Freedom of SPEECH out the window on this case