05 May 2009 – I know, it’s out of order.
In Contempt of Texting
May 5, 2009 | 19 views | 0 
| 0 
| 
| 
Susan Henwood was recently released from jail 2 days into a 30-day sentence for contempt of court. Judge Stephen Henriod issued the sentence after Mrs. Henwood texted information regarding the debt-collection proceedings to her husband, who was unable to attend due to medical concerns.
I’m not an attorney, I don’t even play one on TV (or in the newspaper, in this case), but I do know the difference between right and wrong. Should Mrs. Henwood have been texting during the hearing? Absolutely not. There are standards of behavior in a courtroom, standards to which everyone in the courtroom should adhere. There is an inherent respect for the law and for the system that should be held by anyone in attendance.
That being said, the actions of Judge Henriod illustrate one of the reasons that the public’s respect for the system is faltering. Regardless of what she was texting to her husband, there was no call to have Mrs. Henwood incarcerated. If she was violating courtroom protocols with her text message, as she obviously was, she should have been instructed by the Judge to switch off her phone. Failure to follow those instructions could then result in a fine for contempt or removal from the courtroom, but certainly not 30 days in jail.
Judge Henriod insists that it was the message’s content that prompted the decision to jail Mrs. Henwood, not the fact that she was texting. The judge received an affidavit from a woman sitting in the courtroom that claims to have overhead Mrs. Henwood and her mother-in-law speaking about hiding assets. That is an even more ridiculous reason to have Mrs. Henwood jailed than texting to her husband. Has Judge Henriod not read the United States Constitution? Mrs. Henwood and her mother-in-law have the freedom to discuss whatever they wish, it becomes a crime only if they actually perform an illegal action.
The worst thing here is that this is all about a civil matter. This wasn’t a criminal case, and Mrs. Henwood was not a defendant. She was there as a representative of her husband. Whatever conversation she has with her husband’s mother is, and should remain, between them. It is not the business of the court, nor is it the business of an eavesdropping busybody in the courtroom.
Let’s put this whole case into perspective. Not long ago a Tooele County substitute teacher was sentenced to 36 months of probation and ordered to pay a $2,000 fine for having sex with an underage student. Probation and a fine, no jail time. Susan Henwood was sentenced to 30 days in jail for sending a text message to her husband.
Susan Henwood served 2 days of that sentence and was then released by Judge Henriod, “because of her children,” he stated. He didn’t, however, revoke his decision or even commute the remainder of the sentence. It will be reconsidered at her husband’s next hearing. What should be reconsidered before the next hearing is Judge Henriod’s fitness to serve as a judge. His callous disregard for Mrs. Henwood’s freedom of speech and vindictive decision to jail her over a text message at the very least warrant an investigation from the state Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission.