Adopting the findings of a special investigative committee, the Judicial Council for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit publicly reprimanded a District Judge for the Southern District of California for ordering a Deputy U.S. Marshall to handcuff a defendant’s 13-year-old daughter during a hearing.  In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct (Benitez), Order (Judicial Council for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit May 1, 2024).

On February 13, 2023, the judge presided over a sentencing hearing for Mario Puente for violating the terms of his supervised release.  Puente’s daughter, who was 13 years old at the time, had submitted a written statement in support of her father before the hearing and during the hearing was sitting in the back of the courtroom with a relative and a family friend. 

Puente’s counsel, a Federal Public Defender, joined the recommendation from the probation office for a sentence of 10 months of detention followed by a termination of supervised release.  While discussing the recommendation, Puente’s counsel noted that Puente’s daughter was seated in the courtroom.  When the judge asked why ending supervised release was appropriate, Puente’s counsel discussed the circumstances of Puente’s violations, including an incident in which Puente’s daughter found him unconscious after he accidentally overdosed on fentanyl.

The judge asked Puente if he had anything to add.  Puente said he hoped to leave San Diego, in part because his daughter was “following the same footsteps as I am right now,” and “had run-ins with smoking some weed and doing some things, hanging out with people,” adding, “The only thing I can do for her is try to get her out, try to get her out.”

The judge asked one of the Deputy U.S. Marshals in the courtroom, “[y]ou got cuffs?  Do you?”  The judge then asked, “[w]hat’s that young lady’s name?” and requested that Puente’s daughter “com[e] up for just a second and stand next to that lawyer over there.”  After Puente’s daughter approached, the judge told the deputy marshal, “Do me a favor.  Put cuffs on her.”  The deputy marshal handcuffed Puente’s daughter.  The judge then instructed the marshal, “[n]ow, would you mind escorting her and putting her over there in the jury box for me for just a minute.”  After Puente’s daughter was placed in the jury box, where her father sat, the judge stated, “[t]hat’s good enough.”

After between a few seconds to 4 minutes – witnesses’ recollections varied – the judge told the deputy marshal, “Okay.  You can take the cuffs off,” and the marshal removed the handcuffs.  The judge then had the following dialogue with Puente’s daughter:

Judge Benitez:  Now, don’t go away.  Now, don’t go away.  Look at me.  Look at me for just a second.  You see where  your dad is?

Puente’s daughter:  Yes.

Judge Benitez:  How did you like the way those cuffs felt on you?

Puente’s daughter:  I didn’t like it.

Judge Benitez:  How did you like sitting up there?

Puente’s daughter:  I didn’t like it.

Judge Benitez:  Good.  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.  And then some day, you’ll look back and you’ll say to yourself, “Where did my life go?”  And the answer will be that you spent most of your life in and out of jail – in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out – and it will be, probably, because of drugs.  You’re an awfully cute young lady, and I have a feeling you have a wonderful life ahead of you.  But from what I just heard about your dad – from your dad causes me to be very troubled.  You can go back and sit with your – with your mom.

The judge proceeded to discuss in some detail his feelings about drugs.

He then sentenced Puente to 10 months of detention and 2 years of supervised release.  While setting forth the conditions of Puente’s supervised release, the judge again addressed Puente’s daughter:

I hope the next time you’re tempted to use drugs, even weed, okay, even weed, you’ll remember what happened here today.  I hope you remember this mean, old face.  Look at it carefully.  Remember that some day, those drugs may land you in a courtroom just like this.  I don’t want that to happen to you, young lady.  I want you to have a wonderful – you got so much life ahead of you.  I want you to have a wonderful life.  I want your dad to get over his addiction.  I want him to come home, be a good dad to you, and keep you out of trouble.  If you’re ever, ever, ever, ever tempted to use drugs, make sure you tell your mom.  Make sure you tell someone.  Okay?  Don’t do it, please.  Please, I beg you.  Okay?  Great.

The committee found:

• Numerous witnesses stated that Puente’s daughter was crying when the marshal handcuffed her and while she remained handcuffed.
• The judge’s tone with Puente’s daughter “was stern and calm but not loud.”
• The mother of Puente’s daughter recalled that her daughter spoke little and had “puffy eyes” from crying after returning home from the hearing and that she became depressed and was reluctant to go to school because of the hearing.
• “Most witnesses recall the reactions in the courtroom as shock and surprise when Mr. Puente’s daughter was handcuffed.”
• Several lawyer witnesses recalled looking to Puente’s counsel and the 2 Federal Public Defender supervisors to see if they would object to the judge’s actions.  The transcript reflects that no objections were made.  Several witnesses explained that no objection was raised due to concerns that an objection would make the situation worse.
• According to multiple witnesses, the judge appeared to be trying “to provide, in the general words of the witnesses, a ‘scared straight’ experience” for Puente’s daughter.

In his responses and arguments in the discipline proceedings, the judge explained that he had felt that he had an opportunity “to possibly alter the destructive trajectory of two lives” during the hearing, stressing his strong concerns about the dangers of drug use, his experiences with drug offenders, and statistics and studies related to drug use, specifically as to adolescents and youth.  The judge acknowledged that he is aware that counseling, therapy, and mental health treatment are the best ways to help young people overcome issues such as drug use but noted “that kind of intervention was not in the inventory of actions within my control.”

The judge also highlighted that no one in the courtroom objected to his actions and that he never raised his voice, called Puente’s daughter or Puente names, berated Puente’s daughter, or said anything that would demean or shame her.  The judge accused Puente’s counsel of trying to “[g]am[e] the system,” and using Puente’s daughter to “obtain a desired result.”  The judge indicated that he would be willing to apologize to Puente’s daughter “if I could also briefly explain why I did what I did.”

The Council found that the judge “took it upon himself to order Mr. Puente’s daughter to be handcuffed for the purpose of teaching both the girl and her father a lesson about the consequences of drug use” and emphasized “the physical and emotional impacts of shackling and the lack of any basis for handcuffing Mr. Puente’s daughter in these circumstances.”

In this case, Mr. Puente’s daughter was present in court for the purpose of supporting her father.  Under these circumstances, Judge Benitez had no authority to order her to be physically restrained.  Judge Benitez cites no persuasive legal authority in his written submissions to the Committee or in his written response to the Committee’s report to justify his actions.  Further, the Judicial Council is not aware of any legal authority even arguably authorizing the handcuffing and detention of a spectator at a criminal hearing who has not engaged in any behavior that threatens the dignity and order of the proceedings.

The Council also explained that “judicial actions that exclude or discourage the presence of supportive family members may infringe the rights of both defendants and their loved ones.”

The Council emphasized:

At no point during this investigative process has Judge Benitez accepted that his actions were ill-advised, improper, and damaging to the public’s trust in the judiciary.  Judge Benitez has in fact placed blame on others, particularly the Federal Defenders, for his actions that day.  Judge Benitez accuses the Federal Defenders of using the letter from Mr. Puente’s daughter “as leverage,” but criminal defendants are well within their rights to solicit and submit letters of support.

Noting that the judge has “maintained that he acted only with the best intentions,” the Council emphasized that his good intentions did not excuse his “misguided and inappropriate methods that exceeded the authority vested in him.  His actions not only harmed Mr. Puente’s daughter, but also impaired the public’s trust in the institution.  Judge Benitez’s arguments for why his conduct was justified in the circumstances are not persuasive . . . .”

The Council noted that there had been “significant publicity and media coverage” about the incident.  Rejecting the judge’s suggestion that its “finding of judicial misconduct is a result of public pressure,” the Council explained that, “On the contrary, reinforcing the public’s trust in the judiciary is within the scope of the Council’s duties.”