NJ- Judge Spooked by Sex Offender's Donning of Sunglasses Is Dressed Down on Appeal

9-4-2008 New Jersey:

A New Jersey judge's apparent obsession with a sex offender's wearing of sunglasses in court is ground for a new hearing on whether his involuntary civil commitment should continue, a state appellate court ruled on Wednesday.

The Essex County judge's repeated insistence that the man remove his glasses despite his and a doctor's assertions that they were a medical necessity puts her fairness into question, the panel said in In re Civil Commitment of S.B.M., A-2384-07.

S.B.M., who is mentally retarded and an alcoholic and has a history of violent sex crimes, has been involuntarily confined since 2003, subject to annual review under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 et seq.

At his last hearing, in December 2007, a forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Dean Michael DeCrisce, was testifying about S.B.M.'s mental condition when Superior Court Judge Serena Perretti interrupted: "Doctor, is there any reason why [he has to] wear those black glasses?"

DeCrisce said he wasn't sure. Perretti repeatedly told S.B.M. to remove the glasses and each time he told her he had a medical condition that required he wear them. DeCrisce checked S.B.M.'s medical records and told the judge that "tinted lenses were medically necessary."

Perretti didn't buy it, stating that "use of black glasses in courtrooms are universally considered to be threatening gestures." Ruling the civil commitment should continue, she said, "The court is satisfied that there is no established medical cause or reason for the black glasses, which [S.B.M.] voluntarily doffed."

Appellate Division Judges Ariel Rodriguez and Clarkson Fisher Jr. said the judge's attitude was suspect.

"Here, we are very concerned by the judge's demeanor during the hearing," they said. "She went off on a tangent regarding S.B.M.'s wearing dark glasses. She interrupted relevant testimony to pursue this inquiry. The judge demanded that S.B.M. remove the glasses repeatedly and disbelieved him, without any basis, when he asserted that they were medically approved and that he had authorization to use them." She continued on even after the doctor reported to her that the glasses were necessary.

"This is wearisome to us because the judge is the finder of fact," they said. "The issue of the dark glasses was trivial, it had no relevance to the issue of S.B.M.'s continued confinement. ... But, it showed the judge's unwillingness to believe S.B.M., even when his statement that he had a medical form was corroborated. It also calls into question the judge's ability to conduct a fair hearing," they said, ordering a new hearing before a different judge.

S.B.M.'s lawyer, Deputy Public Advocate Joan Van Pelt, says she is trying to schedule an expedited second hearing. She declined to comment on the ruling or discuss S.B.M.'s history.

The attorney general's office did not return telephone messages. ..News Source.. by Michael Booth, New Jersey Law Journal