A paralyzing amount of commanding presence. Absolutely outstanding control of his courtroom and the situation. All while maintaining the integrity of his witnesses and the case.
This just doesn't smell 👃right!.. LOL. I really like this Judge. Judge Kyle your the most honorable judge I've ever seen. Don't bring no BS in my courtroom..
The private investigator was attempting to get the witness who was in the middleman testimony to get her to change her testimony while on recess. That investigator was unethical and kicked out of court.
Louise Belcher, I have learned alot about the law from watching Judge Judy and Judge Joe Brown and you can't get more professional than that. I have the upmost respect for these two judges and the entertainment you speak of only comes from the plaintiffs or defendants. The fact that i said he needs to be on tv is in no way diminishing his intellect or professionalism as a Judge.
Judge Kyle, you are extremely professional with a hint of fun. Hopefully, would be murderers will take note that they will not get away with it. Another win for the Victims family and the state.
@@AuditAmplifier THANKYOU for pointing that out to me. My comment was in relation to another incident with Judge Kyle. For some reason I've attached it to the wrong video clip. I didn't notice until you brought it to my attention. Thank you. I'm from the UK and love how your judicial system works in most states in the USA. I will leave my comment as it is, that way your follow up comment and my reply will stay put.
@@AuditAmplifier - You don't know the whole story. No recording and or video is allowed in the court. That investigator was very unethical and was attempting to get a witness to talk during a recess about her testimony which is a violation.
Wow. I missed the last week of trial, but have followed it everyday prior. Just got caught up and I’m just shocked the defense would pull such a shady act! Love judge Kyle and I hate to see him so upset.
@@AuditAmplifier incorrect. They clearly stated that the ones recording were hired Private Investors and not journalists. If you were a journalists they have to get approval before recording. Court proceeding rules are there to protect the jury, employees and witnesses.
@@AuditAmplifier Merely recording is not protected first amendment activity. You must use it to express an idea or opinion. Also, it is restricted during court proceedings without prior court authorization. I think you need to read up on case law regarding protected first amendment recording.
@Sharyn Whitmire The judge seems more dignified, to me than a TV judge. Seriously, court reality shows are a dime a dozen. IMHO, I’d be surprised if he was even interested in that showmanship, he seems way too professional.
I like the way the judge handled this. I’m curious how this plays with the people titling themselves as “av watchmen?” I recently watched video of men stating their first amendment right as “private press” to have legal foundation for filming in areas classified as “public service locations” with policies in tact to prevent such filming. I’m unfamiliar with this area of the law because I don’t care to push against such policies. However, it brought a number of questions to my mind about which policies are enforced and why. The videos I watched were filmed in police stations, police parking areas reserved for police approved activity and court houses. The policies weren’t legally enforced by the law officers that arrived on scene. I like a lot of the protections put into place for juries and officials. How would someone learn which policies are legally enforceable when “av watchmen” are pressing for the amendment rights to be protected?
Watch a little Long Island Audit if you want to know what it's all about. Perfectly-polite dude with a big, bad... wait for it... camera phone! Oh no! You're conducting business within a public building, paid for with your own tax-dollars, and there are cameras everywhere in the ceiling which we can all FOIA request footage from... but that cellphone! They actually arrest people, including him, for disobeying signs that directly violate The Constitution they ALL swore their oaths to. It's simple but people go BANANAS like they expect to have privacy in 'public,' even as public employees when you can just go down the hall and FOIA request their full name, position and salary.
I agree with the judge it's a reason they was recording they shouldn't have been recording anyone coming out of the courtroom the judge have every right to be upset and leery of what's going on
crrash69 - You do not understand why no recording is prevented in the court building. That investigator was attempting to get a witness to talk about her testimony and change her testimony. He was a dirty investigator. The court has all sorts of legal reason not to allow recordings in the building.. Uncover law enforcement, minors, witnesses etc. are in that building.
It doesn't, a courthouse is considered a nonpublic forum. This isn't remotely overreaching, the supreme Court has ruled this to be constitutional nearly a dozen times. Obviously, as they don't allow pics or filming either. Nixon v Warner Media states that there is no inherent right to film or record in any sort of a courthouse, though it may be granted if laws allow and a judge chooses to. Selfick V Gardner holds that a courthouse is not a public forum and people don't have a right to film, record audio, or protest there.
2:55... It's first-amendment-protected activity, "judge." You and your coworkers can put up whatever signs your collective hearts desire but you have to follow the law when it comes to enforcing anything... If my feet are in a public venue I can record anything that my eyes can see.
from what I understand (I dont know too much about mistrial laws and causes of such mistrials so this is second-hand information), what they were doing looked like a mistrial attempt which, one thing I do know is mistrials are a serious thing. Also, you are technically wrong. Certain things irl cannot be recorded even if you are on a public venue. Can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but I know there are exceptions, and while I never been to court, I would imagine Court would have these same exceptions giving the importance of them - especially since this PI was filming witnesses.
@Lord Vectra I'm definitely not wrong. There is no expectation of privacy in public (for ANYONE). Although judges may write orders about filming inside of a courtroom while in session they cannot apply restrictions to public lobbies outside the courtroom nor ANY publicly-accessable areas within the courthouse itself. "What [that has] to do with videoing random people leaving MY courtroom" is irrelevant; public is public and we have Freedom of Press in this country for exactly this reason. That judge can't just ban something because he doesn't like it the same way police arrest people who offend them or don't obey arbitrary orders. Police have NO AUTHORITY over you unless you are suspected of an actual crime which they can reasonably articulate suspicion of but they try telling people what to do under threat of arrest all the time, and judges are SUPPOSED to be the ones who know the law best to decide who is right and who is wrong. I'm not sure how this judge can lawfully mediate anything without fully understanding The Constitution that he and all public officials actually swear their Oaths to... The ONLY place he can say no recording is in the actual courtroom while in session, and even that doesn't seem quite right with him being a member of the judicial branch of gov't rather than the legislative branch. The People make the laws through legislation; judges don't write laws, only "case law" when they rule on cases ACCORDING TO LAW. This judge is wrong and overstepping with his perceived authority over people who are NOT defendants standing before him. p.s. You're wrong, too, for calling me wrong... lol ✌
Judges have the right to regulate behavior within the courthouse, to ensure that the court can function properly. The head judge decided that recording in the lobby interferes with the court, which I’d argue is a reasonable rule. So no, the pi didn’t have permission to record people in the lobby and the court had the right to prevent him from doing that. Recording people leaving the courthouse is a different matter, but keep in mind this is not a random private citizen. The judge is asking pointed questions about the defense team and the pi. If they’re acting unethically or unreasonably, whether or not they break the law they still might face serious professional consequences (as they should)
Privacy laws vary state by state, but in general you can’t record a private conversation between two people unless you have both of their permission. Recording video is less restricted than recording audio, but there are also restrictions around things like infrared video because using it someone could see through barriers like houses or cars or clothes
You need to go back and read 1st again thoroughly. Freedom of Press doesn’t give PI the right to go inside the court and film witnesses and jurors. You, as a private citizen, do not have the right and you’re not protected by Press Clause so you can’t go around and film people inside the courthouse if you’re not a reporter. Go again, read the 1st and opinions and come back to discuss and don’t go around and go “Ahhh but muh rughts”.
