Masturbating In Court Not 'Inappropriate' As Long As No One Notices, Prosecutors Argue - Above the Law

"Sometimes, you don't have to make every argument in the alternative. For example, the prosecutors in Littlejohn v. State of Texas had a number of avenues to challenge a competency evaluation request from the defendant's counsel. The defense sought to check the defendant's mental competence after learning that the court clerk observed the defendant masturbating during testimony at the punishment phase of his trial. We've all heard some wanky testimony before, but this takes it to another level."

"The judge and defense counsel both said they hadn't seen it. The jury didn't report seeing it. And the defendant denied it. But the thing about someone masturbating under a table is that they're probably trying to keep it hidden. So, trusting the court clerk's observation, defense counsel requested a competency evaluation. The judge declined. Littlejohn was sentenced to 18 years, which was not the happy ending he hoped for."

"The Harris County District Attorney's office filed its appellate brief, arguing that the trial court didn't abuse its discretion. Prosecutors argued that the clerk never formally testified to having seen anything (fair enough), disruptive behavior is not conclusive of incompetence (makes sense), stopping trials for competence evaluations for every act like this could incentivize defendants to use inappropriate behavior to stall or derail their cases (certainly worth considering)...."

Prosecutors in Littlejohn v. State of Texas opposed a defense request for a competency evaluation after a court clerk reported observing the defendant masturbating during punishment-phase testimony. The judge, defense counsel, jury, and defendant all denied seeing the conduct, but defense counsel relied on the clerk's observation and requested evaluation. The trial judge declined and sentenced Littlejohn to 18 years. On appeal the defendant argued for an informal competency inquiry. Harris County prosecutors argued no abuse of discretion: the clerk never testified, disruptive behavior alone does not establish incompetence, and routine stops would incentivize manipulation.

Read at Above the Law