• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Thanking Jesus in Court Lands Man in Jail

Thanking Jesus in Court Lands Man in Jail
By Associated Press
Fri Jul 14, 4:36 PM

HONOLULU - Junior Stowers raised his hands and exclaimed, "Thank you, Jesus!" in court last month when he was acquitted by a jury of abusing his son.

But his joy was short-lived when Circuit Judge Patrick Border held him in contempt of court for the "outburst" and threw him in jail.

Stowers, 47, sat in the courtroom and a cellblock for about six hours until the judge granted him a hearing on the contempt charge and released him.

The judge at a July 7 hearing dropped the contempt charge, a petty misdemeanor that carries up to 30 days in jail.

Stowers couldn't be reached for comment. But his attorney in the contempt case, Deputy Public Defender Susan Arnett, said he wasn't treated fairly.

"I don't think there's anything about saying 'Thank you, Jesus' that rises to the level of contemptuous behavior in this case," she told The Honolulu Advertiser.

Stowers is a devoutly religious man active in his church who spontaneously expressed his thanks to the higher power in which he believed, she said.

Family members and Stowers' pastor at Assembly of God Church, Iakopo Sale, who watched from the gallery were "very upset that those words could land somebody in jail," Arnett said.

Border declined to comment but indicated the court minutes reflected his actions. The minutes showed he found Stowers' "nonverbal gestures and outbursts to be disruptive and improper regardless of content."

Court minutes said Border later dropped the charge because he realized Stowers' trial lawyer, Deputy Public Defender Carmel Kwock, did not have time to tell Stowers the judge had ordered both sides not to show emotion when the verdict was announced.

Stowers, of Honolulu, was charged with hitting his 15-year-old son with a broomstick in January. The misdemeanor charge of abusing a household member carries a sentence of up to a year in jail. Stowers was free on a $1,000 bond.

During the trial last month, the boy recanted his earlier statements that his father hit him, according to court records.

The boy instead testified his brother had hit him with a car door, a story verified by the brother in court.

Just before the verdict was announced on June 29, Border called city Deputy Prosecutor Sean Sanada and Kwock to the bench and told them he didn't want a show of emotion by either side, according to a defense request to dismiss the contempt charge.

When Stowers made his remarks after the verdict was announced, the judge told him, "There will (be) no more of that," the papers said.

Stowers asked to approach the bench and apologize, but the judge told him he could not and ordered him to remain in the courtroom, the defense request said.

 
Prick judge on a power trip, pissed off he didn't nail the conviction (which meant no fees/revenue to the court for that case).
 
The judge warn both sides (well the lawyers anyways) not to show any emotions after the verdict. He was in contempt for the outburst, not the content of the outburst.
 
Just before the verdict was announced on June 29, Border called city Deputy Prosecutor Sean Sanada and (defense attorney) Kwock to the bench and told them he didn't want a show of emotion by either side...

If you make a rule, you MUST enforce it. The judge rightly thought at the time that the man broke that rule, regardless of the content of his outburst.

Who he thanked had nothing to do with it. He wasn't supposed to make any outbursts at all.

The charge was only dropped when the judge realized the defense attorney did not properly advise his client of this order. If anything, the defense attorney should be held in contempt.
 
Funny how headlines can change the whole content and context of a story.

It was the fact that he yelled, not what he yelled.
 
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
Funny how headlines can change the whole content and context of a story.

It was the fact that he yelled, not what he yelled.

Exactly. Go home Jesus Freaks 😛
 
Originally posted by: amicold
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
Funny how headlines can change the whole content and context of a story.

It was the fact that he yelled, not what he yelled.

Exactly. Go home Jesus Freaks 😛

*puts jesus doll in pocket*

You win this time, heathen!
 
regardless of what he shouted, i think its a bit retarded. how would you feel if you were cleared of abusing your kid? i'd be pretty damn happy (then again, i'd hope i didn't land my ass in court in the first place 😛)
 
Ah...welcome to legal system of the state of Hawaii. Who's going to be a lawyer there? That would be me... (Posting from my cubicle in the law library...cleaning it out before their summer cleaning crew comes in and throws all of my stuff away)
 
did anyone else think, "wow, what a douchebag son he's got.... his son lied about getting beaten and made his dad's life hell because of it"
 
Originally posted by: eits
did anyone else think, "wow, what a douchebag son he's got.... his son lied about getting beaten and made his dad's life hell because of it"

You are certain the son lied at first and then told the truth? Or did the son tell the truth and then lie(recant)?
 
are you guys daft? even the person writing this article is daft. They cited him on an outburst, not on his words.... the words are immaterial...

What if he had outburst "Holy fvcking ******, Damn Straight"

same thing
 
Originally posted by: PELarson
Originally posted by: eits
did anyone else think, "wow, what a douchebag son he's got.... his son lied about getting beaten and made his dad's life hell because of it"

You are certain the son lied at first and then told the truth? Or did the son tell the truth and then lie(recant)?

well, if you read the article, it says that the son said he was beaten with a broomstick by his dad... then, later, during the trial, he said that his dad didn't hit him and that his brother slammed the car door on him.... his brother validated the story.
 
Back
Top