Lawyer Makes Judge Unhappy, Judge Orders Lawyer Arrested

Every now and then a lawyer gets arrested for raising a voice against injustice. Faya Rose Toure tells her story to The Selma Times:

According to Toure, a Selma officer - whom she referred to as Jim Crow - arrested her for attempting to defend her client Roosevelt Cleveland. Toure claims Selma Municipal Judge Valerie Chittom "found this young man guilty without any opportunity to present any evidence."

When voicing her opinion, Toure said she was found in contempt of court, arrested, manhandled and charged with disorderly conduct and failure to obey. She was later released on a signature bond.

Toure, who is the wife of Sen. Hank Sanders, D-Selma, added both the Selma Police Department and the mayor's office are blind to the injustice taking place in Selma courtrooms and "it's our job to shed light," saying she was stripped of her right to free speech.

< Golden Globes About to Begin | Life Sentence Possible for Adultery in Michigan >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    wow! (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 12:58:03 AM EST
    obviously, all the facts aren't in evidence, but the assertion of "voice" as a weapon, in the police report, is scary.

    surely, this judge couldn't be stupid enough to think this was just going to go away, could she?

    i'd certainly be intrigued to see the transcript of the proceedings, if there is one.

    cpinva (none / 0) (#5)
    by Patrick on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 04:44:16 PM EST
    Usually that's a reference to the method of how the crime was committed.  It used to be reported that way in California when we used the old CR1 forms.  So, a harrassing phone call could be voice as the weapon as could terrorist threats, where the threat was a verbal one.  Taken in the literal I can see where it could be easily misinterpreted.  I'm with you though, it seems there a "rest of the story" out there.  

    The link is the best one I could find, in the relatively superficial search I did.  I don't think the form is much in use in the state, and we haven't used it in years.  


    I got this in small claims court (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 11:21:14 AM EST
    Took a deadbeat former landlord to small claims to recoup the deposit he never returned to me.  While trying to track the guy down, I found out he had a long track record of keeping people's money for no reason, and that he had several bad addresses on file with the city -- the person at the Hall of Records told me to let him know if I tracked the guy down so they could get on him.  The court case was obvious, the judge ruled for me, but only for the exact amount he owed me.  I had asked he be levied the additional fine a judge can impose if the landlord has a record of this kind of conduct -- a fine designed to dissuade this kind of conduct in the first place (after all, merely paying me my own money back means he pays no actual price for his wrong).  When I simply raised the question of why the judge hadn't given this fine to a guy who is the poster-boy for why the fine exists in the first place, well, boy oh boy, did I get the evil eye and the "We are done talking, sir" that was really saying "Shut up or you're getting in trouble".  When I tried to ask again, her tone got louder and meaner and distinctly tyrannical: "We.  Are.  Done.  Sir."  The Queen could not be bothered with the silly questions of the serfs.  And that was just small claims b.s.  In a case like the one that is the focus of this thread, it evidences a much more serious bias on the part of the court -- a bias against those who question the court's decision, who engage in actual freedom by questioning power in a rational manner.

    voice as a weapon (none / 0) (#3)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 11:31:18 AM EST
    Yes, it is very dangerous.  Some say, combined with a printing press, mightier than the sword.

    If they are guilty why confuse things by (none / 0) (#4)
    by JSN on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 03:52:33 PM EST
    introducing evidence? The lawyer was punished because she interfered with the efficient operation of the criminal injustice system.

    I bet not just anyone gets out of the Selma jail on their signature.