US District Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California is facing an ethics probe after it was alleged that he ordered the handcuffing of a 13-year-old girl during a probation revocation hearing for her father. The allegations surfaced in a sentencing memorandum filed on behalf of the girl’s father, Mario Puente, on 23 February. According to Puente’s lawyers, during the hearing, Puente expressed concern for his daughter because she was hanging out with the wrong people, and he wanted to move her so she wouldn’t follow his same path. Several minutes after Puente expressed concern for his daughter, Judge Benitez turned to the US Marshal and asked if he had handcuffs. Benitez ordered the girl to approach the bench and told the US Marshal to handcuff her. As the marshal complied with the handcuffing order, the girl began to cry, and after a long pause, Benitez released the girl. He then asked the girl how the cuffs felt, and she said she didn’t like them.
“Good,” Benitez told the girl. “That was the message I was hoping to get to you. So your dad’s made some serious mistakes in his life, and look at where it’s landed him. And as a result of that, he has to spend time away from you. And if you’re not careful, young lady, you’ll wind up in cuffs, and you’ll find yourself right there where I put you a minute ago.” Benitez then told the girl that she was “an awfully cute young lady,” but he is troubled by her father’s concerns.
The incident occurred on 13 February, and the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has confirmed the probe. The case was transferred to a new judge who sentenced Puente to time served without supervised release. Benitez is an appointee of former President George W. Bush. A substantial majority of the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary had given Benitez a “not qualified” rating in 2004 after his nomination.
According to a written statement explaining the rating to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Richard M. Macias, the circuit member for the evaluation of Benitez, said, “over and over, I received negative comments regarding Judge Benitez’s judicial temperament… Interviewees repeatedly told me that Judge Benitez displays inappropriate judicial temperament with lawyers, litigants, and judicial colleagues; that all too frequently, while on the bench, Judge Benitez is arrogant, pompous, condescending, impatient, short-tempered, rude, insulting, bullying, unnecessarily mean and altogether lacking in people skills.”
The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that a 9th Circuit judge will review the ethics allegation against Benitez and decide whether to dismiss the ethics charge, take corrective action, or form a special committee to investigate. An administrative law clerk for Benitez told the San Diego Union-Tribune in an email that he “is not permitted to comment on matters pending before the court.”
The incident has generated controversy and criticism of Benitez’s actions, with some legal experts questioning whether his behavior was appropriate. Experts noted that the “scared straight” approach is a controversial tactic that has been criticized for its effectiveness and ethics. They argue that while it is important to impress upon young people the seriousness of criminal behavior, there are better ways to achieve this than using fear tactics.
The incident highlights the importance of judicial ethics and the need for judges to maintain a high standard of conduct. Judges have an obligation to act impartially and treat all parties with respect and dignity. Any action that undermines this obligation can severely affect the judge and the judicial system.
In conclusion, Judge Benitez’s actions have sparked an ethics probe, and legal experts are questioning the appropriateness of his behavior. The incident underscores the importance of judicial ethics and the need for judges to maintain a high standard of conduct. It remains to be seen what action will be taken in response to the allegations against Benitez.