'Uncharted Territory': Judge Ends Phone Hearing After Unruly Audience Keeps Interrupting His Call
U.S. District Judge Steve Jones opted to reconvene privately with lawyers after the audience failed to abide by repeated requests to mute their phones.
April 15, 2020 at 02:44 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge in Atlanta reluctantly shut down a public teleconference after members of the public repeatedly interrupted a hearing over whether issuing gun carry licenses is an essential services during the COVID-19 pandemic.
U.S. District Judge Steve Jones said at the start of Wednesday's teleconference that he decided not to hold the hearing at the Richard Russell Federal Building in downtown Atlanta because of public safety concerns associated with the potential spread of COVID-19.
GeorgiaCarry.org filed the petition in question for a writ of mandamus last Friday challenging the Fulton County Probate Court's decision to treat the issuance of handgun carry permits as a nonessential function. The group wants a temporary restraining order barring the state from enforcing a law requiring people who carry a handgun in public to secure a license from their county probate judge during the pendency of the state health and judicial emergencies, which is slated to end May 13.
Jones said it was the first time he was allowing public and media access to a remote hearing and invited people to contact him afterward about "what went right, what went wrong."
Jones' staff warned callers at the start of the hearing to mute their phones if they were not participants. But missing from the equation was a universal mute function or a virtual bailiff to shut down inadvertent and intentional interruptions from the remote audience.
The judge and attorneys from the office of the state attorney general, the Fulton County law department and plaintiff GeorgiaCarry were frequently interrupted by loud music, running water, background conversations and occasional vocal interjections by at least one person who took issue with the lawyers' assertions.
Jones and staff who were also monitoring the call repeatedly warned people throughout the hearing to mute their telephones, but to no avail. They also cautioned lawyers to keep room noise down and observed several times that people monitoring the teleconference on their cellphones were apparently placing the conference on hold to take calls, resulting in background music.
At one point, a member of Jones' staff apologized for the interruptions. "We are in uncharted territory," she said.
The lively hearing had been in progress nearly an hour when Jones issued a final warning to those listening in, which at one point included nearly 100 people, according to an Atlanta judge who joined the call.
"If we are interrupted again by a member of the public, I am going to terminate this call," Jones said. "This is the last notice."
"It's the same male voice every time," the judge noted. "If there is another interruption, this call will be closed." He said he would then send lawyers a new access number to continue the hearing without the public. About five minutes later, the exasperated judge announced he was terminating the call.
"I think it's one person doing this," he said. "I apologize to all news media organizations and the public. But I cannot have people interrupting when they don't agree with what the lawyers said."
Jones is not alone in his frustration over efforts to continue court functions and make them accessible to the public in the face of the coronavirus pandemic. Judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also initially struggled with technical issues while holding oral arguments by telephone after the circuit issued an order that all oral arguments would be conducted remotely. Judges were dropped from the call, lost audio, were temporarily locked out, or plagued with "weird noises."
One judge who attempted to conference with her colleagues after the telephone arguments was stopped from doing so by an electronic voice announcing the conference was over and directing her to "please hang up."
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Sets Early 2025 Trial for Ex-Prosecutor Charged With Meddling in Ahmaud Arbery Investigation
3 minute readFulton Reelects Willis as DA Amid Ongoing 2020 Election Case Against Trump
3 minute readHigh Court to Weigh If Amended Complaints Establish Sovereign Immunity Waiver
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250