Mara Lavitt Photos
Justices Nora Dannehy, Steven Ecker, Andrew McDonald, and Raheem Mullins.
How should a judge respond to racist tirades in court from a man purportedly experiencing psychosis?
The state Supreme Court weighed that question at a hearing held at Yale Law School as part of the court’s “On Circuit” initiative to bring oral arguments to educational institutions across the state.
Court marshals set up a temporary metal detector and bag inspection system inside the law school’s Grove Street entrance, leading to a large wood-paneled lecture hall with gothic stained glass windows. The Supreme Court justices and attorneys exchanged questions and arguments where a professor might otherwise have been lecturing, as a smattering of law students and professors looked on.
The court on Wednesday morning was hearing Gregory Johnson v. Superior Court, a case revolving around a hearing that unfolded in the virtual courtroom of Superior Court Judge John M. Newson on May 4, 2023.
Gregory Johnson appeared that day before Judge Newson representing himself in a habeas case against the state — and soon launched into diatribes about the judge, using the n‑word and other offensive language. (Both Johnson and Newson are Black.)
Johnson eventually attributed the outburst to a hallucinatory episode, related to the fact that he had not taken his prescribed medication that day.
The hearing concluded with Newson’s decision to add a total of 18 months to Johnson’s decades-long prison sentence on “contempt” charges.
Johnson and his lawyer are now challenging that sentencing, arguing that Newson should have recused himself from the contempt hearings due to the uniquely inflammatory nature of Johnson’s personal, racial attacks.
At stake is the extent to which a judge can maintain impartiality during moments of bigoted confrontation in the eyes of the state’s highest court.
A Hearing Off The Rails
Johnson is a 59-year-old man who’s now served just over half of a 55-year sentence for felony murder (with about 27 more years in prison ahead).
According to the Hartford Courant, a jury found Johnson guilty of shooting and killing a 28-year-old man named Ansley Gayle in 1996. Johnson, who was 34 at the time, fled to his birthplace of Jamaica for months as law enforcement sought him out; he was caught by a customs agent while trying to enter Canada, and was eventually extradited to the United States from Toronto for his trial.
He was sentenced to 55 years for felony murder in 1998.
The habeas hearing before Newson in 2023 took place online via video conference. It began on a combative note when the judge asked Johnson to identify himself before the court, as all parties are required to do. After stating his name, Johnson repeatedly interjected “I don’t got time for that” and “I don’t care” as the judge admonished him, according to a court transcript.
The exchange quickly escalated and within moments, Johnson was using the n‑word, calling Newson a “house n — — .”
Newson canceled the hearing, and as Johnson continued talking, the judge asked, “What was that, Mr. Johnson? You got something to say?”
“You are Stephen from the movie Django. I am go at the Department of Justice investigate. You are corrupt. You can kiss my ass,” Johnson said, according to the transcript. “Fuck out of here.”
Newson informed Johnson that he would be held in contempt of court for his behavior.
He repeatedly asked Johnson if he would like an attorney, to which Johnson replied “Fuck out of here” and “Kiss my ass.”
“I’m doing life,” he added, ostensibly referring to his 55-year sentence.
“Would you like counsel appointed to represent you, Mr. Johnson?” Newson said a third time. “You face six months incarceration and $100 fine. Would you like counsel?”
Johnson responded, “Yeah… Have the state pay. Yeah.”
As the judge communicated with the clerk about looping in a public defender, Johnson continued to interject and call the judge a “house n — — .”
“That’s a second count of contempt, Mr. Johnson,” Newson replied.
As the clerk continued to attempt finding a public defender and looping them into the video call, Johnson continued his rant, using the same racist slur multiple times.
“And that’s three, Mr. Johnson. You are on audio. I’d advise you to cut it out.”
Soon, public defender Cynthia Barlow logged into the meeting, as the chaotic exchange continued. Newson attempted to explain the situation to Barlow, while Johnson continually interrupted with the slur.
“I’m sorry. I’m having a hard time hearing the Court. Is it possible to mute Mr. Johnson for a moment?” Barlow asked.
“I understand,” said the judge.
“Mute me so you could charge me, scumbag,” said Johnson.
Johnson continued to speak unmuted. The court soon paused for a recess, and Barlow and Johnson had an opportunity to speak online in private before reconvening.
When the hearing resumed, Barlow spoke for Johnson. She related to the judge that Johnson told her he had not taken his medication that day, that he experiences hallucinations, and that he was distressed due to trouble he’d had that day related to his wheelchair.
“I think he’s kind of worked himself up into a bit of a state… And I think he’s not in full control of his faculties right now,” Barlow said.
Then, Johnson had an opportunity to speak. “Well, Your Honor, I’m incompetent. I’ve been trying to get Mental Health to give me my treatment. I don’t recall any of this. But I talked to my lawyer and I’m sorry, but I’m really distraught. I really want to see Mental Health, Your Honor, to get my medication. I really need to see Mental Health.”
In response, the judge said that Johnson’s conduct had been inappropriate throughout the trial.
“With regards to his claim that he is experiencing mental issues and incompetent, again, Mr. Johnson is far from incompetent. He is —“
“You don’t know that,” interrupted Johnson.
“— highly intelligent.”
“You don’t know my mental health,” said Johnson. “What’s wrong with you? You don’t know that.”
At that point, Johnson was muted.
The judge imposed the maximum possible sentence of six months of incarceration for each of the three counts of contempt, to be served consecutively.
The judge pointed to Johnson’s earlier comment, “I’m doing life.”
He said he sought to send a message that “just because he is doing a life sentence, he can’t overtly disrespect the Court because he doesn’t like rulings.”
Justice On Judges: "Are We Special?"
James Mortimer and Raynald Carre make their arguments.
On Wednesday at Yale Law School, Johnson’s new attorney, James Mortimer, argued that Judge Newson should have muted Johnson’s microphone and referred any judgments on the contempt charges to a judge who could be more objective on the matter.
“I have yet to look at another proceeding where the court had concluded proceedings and subsequently found someone in contempt of court,” said Mortimer. He argued that the judge should have done more to “protect the plaintiff from himself.”
“The comments themselves are clearly contemptuous,” said Chief Justice Raheem Mullins. He asked whether any judge would not have found Mortimer’s client in contempt.
The comments were “absolutely horrendous,” Mortimer said. But he argued that there were “other things to take into consideration that were not available [to the judge] in the heat of the moment.”
“My client was unmedicated and experiencing hallucinations,” he said.
Meanwhile, Deputy State’s Attorney Raynald Carre argued in defense of Newson that judges need to be able to take action to maintain a sense of order and procedural gravity in court.
He received pushback from two of the justices on this argument.
Justice Steven Ecker noted that the judge’s stated purpose for the sentence was, at least in part, to “send a message to lifers” that they’re not immune to the consequences of disrespecting the court.
“What was the hurry” in sending that message? Ecker asked.
He made a distinction between an in-person court proceeding, where members of the public are more likely to be watching and absorbing the norms set by the judge, as opposed to the hearing’s online format.
“This particular lifer was trying to send a message right back to the court,” replied Carre.
Carre noted that the online proceeding was viewed by court marshals, lawyers, and potentially witnesses or others waiting for their own cases to be heard.
Justice Andrew McDonald pressed Carre on the mental health factors at play. “If it were actually the case that somebody before the court was suffering a psychotic episode… Would it matter?” he asked. “Or, if it was somebody who has Tourette’s?”
“Different responses are appropriate for different situations,” said Carre. He argued that “for the judge to make the determination that he wasn’t suffering a mental health episode — that’s squarely within judicial authority.”
Ecker pressed Carre on the context in which Judge Newson made that determination.
“These are fighting words” that would likely aggravate anyone, Ecker said. “Are judges exempt from those emotions? Are we special?”
“The habeas court does have a presumption of impartiality,” responded Carre.
“I don’t think there are any talismanic words… that are going to require a recusal from a judge,” said Mortimer in his rebuttal. But this case, he argued, involved “a sustained attack on the integrity of the judge.”
The contempt findings were “an effort to inflict pain” on Johnson, Mortimer said.
Soon, the arguments concluded and the court recessed, with plans to deliberate in the future.