Courtroom judge may have violated the 1st amendment rights of juror

A prospective juror may be sent to jail for using a vulgar term to describe an accused kidnapper.

Stephen Caruso, 27, was in Manhattan State Supreme Court Thursday as a potential juror in the case of a defendant who allegedly got into a car in uptown Manhattan last year, put a gun to the driver's head, told him to drive away and demanded his wallet.

Wetzel found Caruso in contempt and set sentencing for July 18. Caruso, who lives on Sutton Place with his wife and babydaughter, faces up to $1,000 fine and/or 30 days in jail.

The judge hinted he planned to impose jail time. He was "very influenced," he said, by a colleague's case that suggested a fine "sometimes has no punitive value at all."

Legal experts Friday called the judge's actions inappropriate.

"It's understandable judges don't want people using that language in their courtroom," said civil liberties lawyer Norman Siegel. "But people do have First Amendment rights to express themselves and shouldn't be held in contempt for that expression.

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/crime/nyc-juro0702,0,7664239.story?coll=nyc-homepage-breaking2

A man being questioned for jury duty found himself in trouble with the law when he referred to a kidnapping suspect with a vulgarity.

Stephen Caruso, a 27-year-old financial planner, was fined $1,000 on Monday. The judge said the court could not allow such "insulting, demeaning invective spewed at a defendant."

Caruso, who faced up to 30 days in jail, was found guilty of contempt for comments he made before jury selection in the trial of a carjacking-kidnapping case.

The defendant, Robert Sanford, 59, has been convicted and awaits sentencing in August.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/bizarre/071905_APsn_language.html