Defendant Compares Courtroom Jolt to Electric Chair

“I guess that’s how a guy feels who goes to the electric chair,” Ronnie Hawkins said Thursday, referring to the 50,000-volt jolt he endured while wearing a restraining stun belt in a Long Beach courtroom.

Speaking in a jailhouse interview, Hawkins recalled his disbelief as he heard Municipal Judge Joan Comparet-Cassani order a bailiff to activate the belt’s current and the sensation as the device above his left kidney was turned on.

“It was like a stinging in my spine and then a lot of pain in my back. I was paralyzed for about four seconds,” he said at the Men’s Central Jail.

It was the first time that the stun belt’s sting had been unleashed in a Los Angeles courtroom. Los Angeles County sheriff’s bailiffs have strapped the belt around the waists of high-risk defendants--those who might try to escape or act violently--for more than two years.

Hawkins said that since the incident he has struggled to remember what provoked the judge, but transcripts and interviews show that Comparet-Cassani’s order was made in response to Hawkins’s loud but nonviolent behavior in the courtroom.

Comparet-Cassani’s actions drew biting criticism from some public defenders who watched Hawkins’ contorting face and rigid limbs shake during the eight-second shock. Hawkins was talking louder than he should be, they said, but was not acting violently or abusively and did not deserve to be shocked.

Comparet-Cassani said a code of judicial ethics prevents her from discussing the case while it is pending and declined comment. But the prosecuting deputy district attorney, Christopher Frisco, defended her decision as justified. Hawkins had twice been removed from court for flouting court rules during his trial and was considered a security threat because of his poor disciplinary record in jail.

From jail, Hawkins said his treatment had left him disappointed in the criminal justice system. He has spent the last 28 years in and out of prison. But, he said, he always felt he enjoyed the same legal protections as everyone else.

“This is America,” he said. “What about the Constitution? What about my rights to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment?”

Under California law, Hawkins is facing 25 years to life in prison after his third-strike conviction in April.

He said he plans to file a motion for a new trial with a new judge after his July 29 sentence hearing. He is also writing to complain about the incident to the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP and the state’s judicial disciplinary body, the Commission on Judicial Performance.

Legal experts said the decision to stun a defendant for interrupting a judge is outrageous, particularly because Hawkins was acting as his own lawyer.

“It’s a battery,” said Marcia Morrissey, president of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. “You couldn’t throw an object because someone is interrupting you, and you certainly can’t use electricity against someone who is interrupting you.”

The judge had other options to deal with a defendant who is verbally unruly, Morrissey said. Comparet-Cassani should have held Hawkins in contempt and then removed him from the courtroom rather than stun him, she said.

“To me this is an abuse of authority by the judge,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, professor of constitutional law at USC. “If judges can do this, any time someone with a belt on upsets a judge, the judge can zap them.”

But Hawkins’ chances of winning a new trial remain slim despite the incident, legal experts said.

“I think that having excessive force applied [to a defendant] is not sufficient ground to get a new trial,” said civil rights attorney Paul Hoffman. “I would be doubtful that courts would overturn a conviction because of this.”

In fact, there is little Hawkins can do legally, experts said. The judge could recuse herself, but it will unlikely affect Hawkins’ sentence for a three-strikes conviction.

Hawkins could sue Comparet-Cassani and the bailiff who activated the device for violating his civil rights under U.S. law and violating his human rights under international law, experts said. But that too probably would prove unsuccessful, according to Chemerinsky.

*

Judges have nearly absolute immunity from civil suits over actions carried out while sitting on the bench. And the bailiff may be able to invoke the same immunity for acting under a judge’s orders, Chemerinsky said.

“I think it is unlikely that there would be any recourse for [Hawkins],” Chemerinsky said.

But Comparet-Cassani and the bailiff who carried out her orders may still face disciplinary action. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s internal affairs bureau is conducting a routine investigation into the incident.

If a complaint is filed with the Commission on Judicial Performance, the 11-member panel could investigate Comparet-Cassani’s conduct and discipline her if they decide it is warranted.