YEP! THAT’S RACIST: The Case of Reginald Burks and Judicial Overreach – A Gateway to Systemic Injustice

By Ecleynne Mercy Esq.

Purpose of the Article

The purpose of this article is to shed light on the actions of Judge Nicholas Bull in the case of Reginald Burks and to highlight the profound implications of these actions. Judge Bull's order for Mr. Burks to apologize, despite having already paid his fine, serves as a stark example of judicial overreach. This act is akin to a gateway drug, opening the door to more systemic injustices and sending waves throughout the legal community and beyond.

I wrote this article to illustrate how Judge Bull's actions violated numerous fundamental tenets of the justice system, including constitutional rights and ethical standards. By providing a detailed analysis, legal language, and references to Supreme Court rulings, judicial canons, and constitutional provisions, I aim to offer a comprehensive view of the legal, ethical, and racial issues at play.

Furthermore, this article seeks to initiate a serious discussion about the presence and impact of racism within the judicial system. It calls for judicial notice of the pervasive problem of racism in courts and underscores the urgent need for research and reforms to address this critical issue. Through this exploration, I hope to empower readers with the knowledge and tools necessary to understand and challenge racial biases in the judiciary. Case of Mr. Burks

?Reginald Burks

A Dale County man, Reginald Burks, is no longer facing a court order from an Ozark judge to apologize to an officer following a 2023 traffic stop (Storey & Lambert, 2024). This decision follows significant legal and public scrutiny over the judge's initial order, which raised concerns about constitutional rights and judicial conduct.

Court Proceedings

Court documents from the Ozark Municipal Court, sent to News4 by Attorney David Harrison, reveal that Judge Nicholas Bull and City Prosecutor Joe Adams filed a motion to cancel a previously scheduled June 4 hearing. The motion indicated that Reginald Burks had fulfilled his legal obligations and that the city no longer wished to pursue the matter (Storey & Lambert, 2024).

Mr. Burks, who received a speeding ticket in December, was ordered by Judge Bull, following an April 16 hearing, to issue a written apology to the officer who pulled him over. This was in addition to paying approximately $200 in fines and court costs after pleading guilty to a "Reasonable and Prudent Speed" violation. Id.

The apology was mandated due to the manner in which Mr. Burks spoke to the officer during the stop, as detailed in an interview with News4. Mr. Burks recounted the incident, stating, “After he gave me the ticket, he stood at the car (and) I said, ‘Hey, man, can you move?’ He said, go ahead and go. I said, ‘How am I going to go if you are standing right there? Move your ass out the way,’”. Id.

?Judicial Rationale

According to Judge Bull’s May 26 order, the requirement for an apology was deemed reasonable “based upon the initial request of the Prosecutor and the conduct of (Burks) in Court”. Mr. Burks’ story gained national attention as he refused to submit a written apology, citing his First Amendment rights. He was scheduled to appear before the municipal court in June to review the conditions set by Judge Bull, facing a potential 10-day jail sentence if he did not comply. Id.

?Attorney Harrison was engaged by Mr. Burks to address the potential free speech violation posed by the Ozark Municipal Court and Judge Bull. Id.

?Resolution and Commentary

?In a May 26 order dismissing any further action in the case, it was confirmed that Mr. Burks had paid the fine and costs related to his traffic violation but had not submitted a letter of apology after 30 days from the April 16 hearing. Attorney Harrison expressed concern over part of the order that suggested Mr. Burks initially agreed to apologize verbally as part of a deferred prosecution agreement, which included completing defensive driving school—a claim Mr. Burks denies Id.

While the immediate issue has been resolved, Harrison and Mr. Burks plan to explore additional legal options. Id.

Statement from Attorney Harrison

“It feels good to believe that something should not have happened and to finally get a resolution, at least about the jail time,” Harrison said. “I think it takes a lot of strength to take a stand like Mr. Burks did. I want to get the message across that if you have been done wrong by a system, challenge it and maybe something positive will come out of it” Id.

Judge Nicholas Bull

Municipal Judge Nicholas Bull of Ozark has faced scrutiny for his handling of Mr. Burks' case. The judge's order, which required an apology in addition to a fine, raised significant legal and ethical concerns. Critics argue that this order was not only a judicial overreach but also reflected underlying racial biases and an infringement on constitutional rights.

?Judge Bull’s decision was perceived as an attempt to enforce respectability politics and uphold an unjust expectation for African Americans to conform to certain behaviors toward authority figures. This practice harks back to the Jim Crow era, where African Americans were often forced to perform acts of contrition to appease those in power.

?The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech, including the right to refrain from speaking. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the government cannot compel speech or punish individuals for lawful expression (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)).

?Legal and Ethical Violations

Judge Bull's order raised significant legal and ethical concerns. It violated multiple provisions of the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct:

1. ??Canon 1? : Requires judges to uphold the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

2. ??Canon 2? : Mandates that judges perform their duties impartially, competently, and diligently.

3. ??Rule 2.3? : Prohibits judges from manifesting bias or prejudice based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics.

4. ??Rule 2.6? : Ensures that every person with a legal interest in a proceeding has the right to be heard according to law.

By failing to address the racially biased behavior of the police officers and issuing a punitive order without legal basis, Judge Bull compromised the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. His actions reflect a disregard for the constitutional protections afforded to Mr. Burks and perpetuate historical injustices faced by African Americans in the legal system.

Broader Implications

The case of Mr. Burks is emblematic of the systemic issues within the judicial system, particularly regarding racial discrimination and the protection of constitutional rights. The judge's actions serve as a reminder of the urgent need for judicial accountability and systemic reforms to ensure that justice is administered fairly and without bias.

Judge Nicholas Bull: Background and Judicial Conduct

Judge Nicholas Bull serves in the Ozark Municipal Court. His judicial conduct in the case of Mr. Burks has been called into question due to his failure to uphold the principles of judicial impartiality and constitutional rights. The order to compel an apology from Mr. Burks, after he had already paid the fine for his traffic violation, constitutes an overreach of judicial authority and reflects a punitive mindset incompatible with fair judicial practice.

Judge Bull's decision has been criticized for reinforcing racial biases and respectability politics, where African Americans are expected to conform to certain behaviors deemed acceptable by those in power. This practice is reminiscent of the historical subjugation experienced during the Jim Crow era, where African Americans were often forced to perform acts of contrition to appease those in authority.

?The case of Mr. Burks illustrates the ongoing challenges in achieving judicial impartiality and fairness, particularly in the context of racial bias. Judge Bull's actions serve as a stark reminder of the need for judicial accountability and the protection of constitutional rights to ensure that justice is truly blind and equitable for all individuals.

The Case of Mr. Burks: A Legal and Moral Examination

In the courtroom, where justice is expected to be blind, the case of Mr. Burks starkly revealed the systemic biases that continue to plague our judicial system. As Mr. Burks' attorney, I am compelled to bring to light the actions of the presiding judge, the behavior of the police officers involved, and the broader implications these have for justice, particularly for African Americans.

Violations of Professional and Legal Standards

In this case, the judge's actions were not merely errors in judgment; they were clear violations of established legal and professional standards. The American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct sets forth that a judge must uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary (Canon 1) and avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities (Canon 2). Furthermore, Rule 2.3 explicitly prohibits judges from manifesting bias or prejudice based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics.

?The judge in Mr. Burks' case violated these canons by failing to address the overtly racist behavior of the officers involved and by not ensuring that Mr. Burks received a fair trial. The judge’s duty as a public official, as mandated by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, includes respecting and honoring the judicial office as a public trust and striving to maintain and enhance confidence in the legal system.

Historical Context: Jim Crow to Post-Civil Rights Era

To understand the gravity of the judge's actions, we must compare them to the behavior of judges during the Jim Crow era and the period following the Civil Rights Movement. During Jim Crow, judges often overtly supported and enforced racial segregation and discrimination. After the Civil Rights Movement, while laws changed, the attitudes and biases of many in the judiciary did not evolve at the same pace. Judges are expected to lead by example, embodying the progress made in civil rights legislation.

In Mr. Burks' case, the judge's failure to act against the clear racial prejudice displayed by the officers mirrors the complacency and complicity of judges during Jim Crow. Despite the legal advancements, the spirit of the law was disregarded, showcasing how deeply entrenched racism continues to influence judicial behavior.

The Racist Actions of Law Enforcement

The actions of the police officers in Mr. Burks' case were blatantly racist. From the initial contact to the courtroom testimony, their behavior was a stark reminder of the systemic racism that African Americans face daily. This aligns with a disturbing pattern observed in many cases where law enforcement disproportionately targets black individuals, often leading to harsher treatment and biased legal outcomes.

The Judge's Duty to Protect Constitutional Rights

As an attorney, a judge, and a public official, the judge in Mr. Burks' case had an unequivocal duty to ensure that Mr. Burks' constitutional rights were protected. This includes the right to equal protection under the law (14th Amendment) and the right to a fair trial (6th Amendment). The judge's failure to address the racist actions of the police officers and ensure an unbiased trial process is a severe dereliction of these duties.

The Dual Standard of Justice

In my experience as an attorney, I have seen a troubling pattern: the higher the net worth, the lower the standard of scrutiny; the lower the net worth, the higher the standard of scrutiny. For black individuals, this discrepancy is even more pronounced. The systemic bias often results in African Americans being devalued and their rights disregarded. The justice system, designed to protect all, instead perpetuates inequality by balancing the scales in favor of white individuals while placing heavier burdens on black individuals.

The Need for Systemic Change

The case of Mr. Burks is a stark reminder of the urgent need for systemic change in our judicial system. Judges and law enforcement officers must be held accountable for their actions. There needs to be a concerted effort to eliminate racial bias and ensure that justice is truly blind. Only then can we begin to restore faith in the legal system and ensure that every individual, regardless of race, receives fair and equal treatment.

As Ministers of Justice, attorneys should all be committed to fighting for justice and holding those in power accountable. The road is fraught with challenges, but it is a fight that must be fought to ensure that the ideals of justice and equality are more than just words on paper.

The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct were adopted by the ABA House of Delegates in 1983. They serve as models for the ethics rules of most jurisdictions. Before the adoption of the Model Rules, the ABA model was the 1969 Model Code of Professional Responsibility. Preceding the Model Code were the 1908 Canons of Professional Ethics (last amended in 1963). (American Bar Association, 2019)

ABA Model Rules Of Professional Conduct: Application

The Application section delineates the circumstances under which the various Rules are applicable to judges or judicial candidates. (American Bar Association, 2019)

Applicability Of This Code

(A) The provisions of the Code apply to all full-time judges. Sections II through V of this part specify the provisions applicable to four categories of part-time judges only during their judicial service and provisions that do not apply to part-time judges at any time. Consequently, all other Rules are applicable to part-time judges at all times. Due to the diverse nature of judicial service, the four categories of part-time judicial service are defined broadly. Canon 4 is applicable to judicial candidates.

(B) A judge, as defined by this Code, includes any individual authorized to perform judicial functions, such as a justice of the peace, magistrate, court commissioner, special master, referee, or a member of the administrative law judiciary.(American Bar Association, 2019)

?ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct: Canon 1

?Canon 1 of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct states, "A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety."

?The judge's failure to address the racist behavior of the police officers involved in Mr. Burks' case undermines the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. By not taking appropriate action, the judge implicitly condones racial bias, which compromises public trust in the judicial system.

?Historically, during the Jim Crow era, judges often supported segregation and racial discrimination, thereby eroding the judiciary's integrity. Post-Civil Rights Movement, judges are expected to lead by example and uphold the principles of equality and fairness. The judge's actions in this case reflect a regression to an era where racial prejudice was rampant in the judiciary.

?The judge did not uphold the required standards of independence, integrity, and impartiality, thereby violating Canon 1 and setting a dangerous precedent that undermines public confidence in the judiciary.

?ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct: Canon 2

?Canon 2 of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct states, "A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently."

?The judge's failure to address the racial prejudice in the courtroom demonstrates a lack of impartiality. By allowing the bias of the officers to go unchecked, the judge compromised the fairness of the trial.

?During the Civil Rights Movement, judges were expected to dismantle the prejudices ingrained in the legal system. The judge's failure in this case reflects a lack of diligence and competence in ensuring an unbiased legal process.

?The judge violated Canon 2 by not performing duties impartially, competently, and diligently, thereby undermining the fairness and integrity of the trial process.

?ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct: Rule 2.3

?Rule 2.3 of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct states, "A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice."

?The judge's inaction regarding the racist behavior of the police officers indicates a manifestation of bias. By not addressing the prejudice, the judge allowed racial bias to influence the judicial proceedings.

Historically, the judiciary has been a battleground for racial equality. Allowing racial bias to persist in the courtroom echoes the discriminatory practices of the Jim Crow era and undermines the progress made during the Civil Rights Movement.

?The judge violated Rule 2.3 by failing to ensure that judicial duties were performed without bias or prejudice, thus compromising the fairness of the trial and perpetuating racial discrimination.

?Code of Conduct for United States Judges: Canon 2A

?Canon 2A of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges states, "A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."

?The judge's failure to address the racist actions of the officers undermines public confidence in the judiciary's integrity and impartiality. By not intervening, the judge failed to comply with the law and promote a fair trial.

?During the Jim Crow era, public confidence in the judiciary was eroded by judges who supported discriminatory laws. The judge's actions in this case mirror that period, diminishing the public's trust in judicial fairness.

?The judge violated Canon 2A by failing to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary's integrity and impartiality, setting a negative precedent for judicial conduct.

?Code of Conduct for United States Judges: Canon 3

?Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges states, "A judge should perform the duties of the office fairly, impartially, and diligently."

?The judge's inaction regarding the racial bias demonstrated by the officers shows a lack of fairness and impartiality. This compromises the diligent performance of judicial duties.

?Historically, fairness and impartiality were compromised during Jim Crow by judges who supported racial discrimination. The judge's behavior in Mr. Burks' case reflects a similar failure to ensure an unbiased legal process.

?The judge violated Canon 3 by not performing judicial duties fairly, impartially, and diligently, thereby compromising the integrity of the trial and setting a negative precedent.

?1st ?Amendment- ?Richard Burks Right to Freedom of Speech

?Forcing Mr. Burks to apologize infringes on his First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the government cannot compel speech (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette , 319 U.S. 624 (1943)). The compelled apology serves as a form of state-enforced expression, violating Mr. Burks' right to remain silent or express dissent.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of the political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.

One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote, and they depend on the outcome of no election. Id.

Freedom of speech? , “freedom of press”, “freedom of assembly” and “freedom of worship” are susceptible of restriction only to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the state may lawfully protect. ?Id.

?The United States Government was set up by the consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. ?Id.

?Freedom to differ is not limited, under the Constitution, to things that do not matter much, but the test of its substance is the right to differ as to things which touch the heart of the existing order. ?Id.

?Justice MURPHY in concurrence stated, “The right of freedom of thought and of religion as guaranteed by the Constitution ?against State action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all, except in so far as essential operations of government may require it for the preservation of an orderly society,—as in the case of compulsion to give evidence in court. Without wishing to disparage the purposes and intentions of those who hope to inculcate sentiments of loyalty and patriotism by requiring a declaration of allegiance as a feature of public education, or unduly belittle the benefits that may accrue therefrom, I am impelled to conclude that such a requirement is not essential to the maintenance of effective government and orderly society. To many it is deeply distasteful to join in a public chorus of affirmation of private belief. By some, including the members of this sect, it is apparently regarded as incompatible with a primary religious obligation and therefore a restriction on religious freedom. Official compulsion to affirm what is contrary to one's religious beliefs is the antithesis of freedom of worship which, it is well to recall, was achieved in this country only after what Jefferson characterized as the ‘severest contests in which I have ever been engaged.’ W. Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

?Justice Murphy's concurrence in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette emphasizes the dual nature of the right to free speech: not only the right to speak freely but also the right to refrain from speaking. He argues that the government's attempt to compel speech, even in the interest of promoting loyalty and patriotism, is not essential for maintaining effective government and orderly society. Murphy highlights that forcing individuals to affirm beliefs contrary to their own is deeply distasteful and violates the principles of freedom of thought and religion. This compulsion, he asserts, is antithetical to the freedom of worship, a liberty achieved through significant struggle in American history. Id.

This principle is directly relevant to the case of Reginald Burkes. Judge Nicholas Bull's order for Mr. Burkes to apologize to a police officer for his speech during a traffic stop infringes on Burkes' First Amendment rights, as recognized in the Barnette case. Id. Just as the state could not compel students to pledge allegiance to the flag, Judge Bull cannot compel Mr. Burkes to apologize, as this too is a form of compelled speech. The judge's order disregards Burkes' right to refrain from speaking and violates his constitutional protection against forced expression. This action exemplifies judicial overreach and reflects the very issues of freedom and personal belief that Justice Murphy warned against.

?6th Amendment - Richard Burks Right to Speedy and Public Trial

?The 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 6

?The judge's failure to address racial bias in the courtroom compromised Mr. Burks' right to an impartial jury and a fair trial. This violates the 6th Amendment.

The 6th Amendment was critical in safeguarding the rights of the accused, particularly during the Civil Rights Movement. The judge's actions in this case undermine these protections and reflect a disregard for constitutional rights.

?The judge violated the 6th Amendment by not ensuring Mr. Burks' right to a fair trial, thereby setting a negative precedent and undermining constitutional protections.

8th Amendment- Richard Burks Right Against Cruel and Unusual Punishment

The Eighth Amendment states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." This clause is interpreted to mean that punishments must be proportionate to the offense and must not be degrading or inhumane. U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 8. The Eighth Amendment prohibits not only barbaric punishments, but also sentences that are disproportionate to the crime committed.

Due process requires that the prosecution prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. ?By its terms, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause expresses a substantive constraint on the kinds of punishments governments may inflict, and it creates no freestanding entitlement to a second or successive round of postconviction review. ??

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments. This provision is applicable not only to physical punishments but also to penalties that are excessively harsh in relation to the offense committed. In the case of Judge Nicholas Bull ordering Mr. Burks to apologize to a police officer after Mr. Burks had already paid a fine, this action may be argued as constituting cruel and unusual punishment. This argument is grounded in the excessive nature of the punishment, its impact on Mr. Burks' dignity and rights, and its broader implications for judicial overreach and racial discrimination.

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia"

42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West)

?

The Supreme Court held “One of the main aims of § 1983 is to override, and thus compel the change of, state laws when necessary to vindicate federal constitutional rights.” ?Nance v. Ward , 597 U.S. 159 (2022)

42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 provides a legal avenue for individuals to seek redress when their constitutional rights are violated by someone acting under the color of state law. This statute allows citizens to file lawsuits against those who, through any statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, cause the deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution and federal laws. It also clarifies that while judicial officers are generally immune from injunctive relief for actions taken in their judicial capacity, exceptions exist if a declaratory decree was violated or if declaratory relief is unavailable.

?In the case of Reginald Burkes, this statute is highly relevant. Judge Nicholas Bull's order, which compelled Mr. Burkes to apologize, can be seen as a deprivation of Burkes' First Amendment rights. Under § 1983, Burkes has the right to seek redress for this constitutional violation. The judge's actions, executed under the authority of his judicial office, subjected Burkes to a punitive measure that infringes upon his freedom of speech. Although judicial officers are protected from injunctive relief under typical circumstances, the violation of Burkes' rights under the First Amendment presents a strong case for the application of § 1983 to address this overreach and seek appropriate remedies.

?In United States v. Tsarnaev , 595 U.S. 302 (2022) the Supreme Court held that “Lower courts cannot create prophylactic supervisory procedural rules that circumvent or supplement legal standards set out in decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.” ?United States v. Tsarnaev , 595 U.S. 302 (2022)

?It is true that some of our precedents describe a “supervisory authority” that inheres in federal courts. But the Court's precedents have also identified clear limits when lower courts have purported to invoke that authority. ?Managerial guidelines cannot clash with or thwart a constitutional provision or federal statute. ?Finally, and most relevant here, lower courts cannot invent cautionary guiding procedures that sidestep, or supplement legal standards set out in decisions of the Supreme Court. Id.

?Excessive Nature of the Punishment

??A. Proportionality Principle?

?The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of proportionality in Eighth Amendment analysis. In Solem v. Helm , 463 U.S. 277 (1983), the Supreme Court held that a punishment must be proportionate to the crime for which the defendant has been convicted. Mr. Burks had already paid a fine, which is a typical and proportional punishment for the offense of speeding. Ordering an additional, non-monetary penalty in the form of a coerced apology is disproportionate to the initial offense and extends beyond the scope of the judicial authority to impose a just penalty.

?B. Psychological and Emotional Impact?

?The 8th Amendment embodies “broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency . . . ,” against which we must evaluate penal measures. Thus, we have held repugnant to the Eighth Amendment punishments which are incompatible with “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society. Estelle v. Gamble (1976).

?Coercing Mr. Burks to apologize imposes a psychological and emotional burden that extends the punitive effects beyond the financial penalty already paid. This mandated apology serves no rehabilitative purpose and instead functions as a public shaming, which can be considered degrading and demeaning. Such a requirement is akin to psychological punishment, which the Supreme Court has recognized as potentially cruel and unusual. Id. ?

?

14th Amendment- Richard Burks’ Right to Due Process

The 14th Amendment, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states,

?"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

By allowing racial bias to influence the trial, the judge failed to provide Mr. Burks with equal protection under the law. This constitutes a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Historically, the 14th Amendment was a cornerstone in the fight against segregation and racial discrimination. The judge's actions in this case contradict the amendment's intent to provide equal protection to all citizens.

The judge violated the 14th Amendment by not ensuring equal protection under the law for Mr. Burks, thereby undermining constitutional protections and setting a harmful precedent.

U.S. Supreme Court Cases: Brown v. Board of Education

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), states, "Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."

The principles of equality established in Brown v. Board of Education extend beyond education to all areas of public life, including the judiciary. The judge's failure to address racial bias in Mr. Burks' case undermines these principles.

Historically, Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark case that aimed to eliminate racial segregation. The judge's actions in this case reflect a failure to uphold the spirit of this ruling, perpetuating racial inequality.

The judge's actions violated the principles of equality established in Brown v. Board of Education, setting a harmful precedent and undermining efforts towards judicial equality.

?U.S. Supreme Court Case: Batson v. Kentucky

?Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), states, "The Equal Protection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge potential jurors solely on account of their race."

?The judge's failure to address potential racial bias during the jury selection process in Mr. Burks' case violates the mandate of Batson v. Kentucky. This compromises the fairness of the trial.

?“The reality of practice, amply reflected in many state- and federal-court opinions, shows that the challenge may be, and unfortunately at times has been, used to discriminate against black jurors. By requiring trial courts to be sensitive to the racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges, our decision enforces the mandate of equal protection and furthers the ends of justice. In view of the heterogeneous population of our Nation, public respect for our criminal justice system and the rule of law will be strengthened if we ensure that no citizen is disqualified from jury service because of his race.” ?Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), states

?Historically, Batson v. Kentucky aimed to eliminate racial discrimination in jury selection, ensuring a fair trial. The judge's actions in this case reflect a disregard for this ruling and perpetuate racial bias in the judicial process.

?As the trier of fact, in this case the Judge here violated the principles established in Batson v. Kentucky by not ensuring he being the trier of fact, free from racial discrimination, setting a harmful precedent and undermining constitutional protections.

?The judge in Mr. Burks' case violated multiple legal and professional standards, setting a dangerous precedent that perpetuates racial inequality and undermines public confidence in the judiciary. These violations reflect a historical pattern of judicial bias that must be addressed to ensure true equality and adherence to the principles of fairness and justice.

?U.S. Supreme Court Case: Cohen v. California

?Cohen was convicted for wearing a jacket with an expletive against the draft in a courthouse.

The Supreme Court ruled that his conviction violated his First Amendment rights. The government cannot criminalize speech simply because it is offensive.

?The Supreme Court has also held that the States are free to ban the simple use, without a demonstration of additional justifying circumstances, of so-called ‘fighting words,’ those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)?

?While the four-letter word displayed by Cohen in relation to the draft is not uncommonly employed in a personally provocative fashion, in this instance it was clearly not ‘directed to the person of the hearer. No individual actually or likely to be present could reasonably have regarded the words on appellant's jacket as a direct personal insult. Nor do we have here an instance of the exercise of the State's police power to prevent a speaker from intentionally provoking a given group to hostile reaction. There is, as noted above, no showing that anyone who saw Cohen was in fact violently aroused or that appellant intended such a result. Id.

?“An undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.” Id.

"The ability of government, consonant with the Constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is, in other words, dependent upon a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner. Any broader view of this authority would effectively empower a majority to silence dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections." Id. ??

“It is, in sum, our judgment that, absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display here involved of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense. Because that is the only arguably sustainable rationale for the conviction here at issue, the judgment below must be reversed” Id.

Ordering Mr. Burks to apologize for his speech violates his First Amendment rights, similar to Cohen's protection against punishment for offensive speech.

U.S. Supreme Court Case: Texas v. Johnson

Johnson was convicted for burning an American flag as a form of protest.

The Supreme Court ruled that flag burning is protected speech under the First Amendment.

“Government generally has freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting written or spoken word, but it may not proscribe particular conduct because it has expressive elements; law directed at communicative nature of conduct must, like law directed at speech itself, be justified by substantial showing of need that First Amendment requires. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)?

“Principal function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute; it may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” Id.

“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit expression of an idea simply because society finds idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Id.

This case supports the principle that expressive conduct, like Mr. Burks' speech, is protected under the First Amendment.

?U.S. Supreme Court Case: Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc

?A litigant's significant contributions to a judge's election campaign led to questions about the judge's impartiality. The Supreme Court ruled that due process requires recusal when there is a serious risk of actual bias. ?Due process may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh scales of justice equally between contending parties.

?“While fair trial in fair tribunal is basic requirement of due process, most matters relating to judicial disqualification do not rise to Constitutional level.” Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. 868 (2009)?

?“Even when judge does not have any direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest in case, of kind requiring his or her disqualification at common law, there are circumstances in which probability of actual bias on part of judge is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.” Id.

?Judge's own inquiry into actual bias is not one that the law can easily superintend or review, though actual bias, if disclosed, no doubt would be grounds for appropriate relief.

?In lieu of exclusive reliance on personal inquiry by judge, or on appellate review of judge's determination respecting actual bias, the Due Process Clause is implemented, in area of judicial recusal, by objective standards which do not require proof of actual bias; in defining these standards, court asks whether, under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weakness, the interest in question poses such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment that practice must be forbidden if guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented.

?Inquiry into actual bias is just one step that judge must take in deciding whether to recuse himself; objective standards may also require recusal whether or not actual bias exists or can be proven. Id.

?Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., emphasized the importance of judicial impartiality and avoiding the appearance of bias, which Judge Bull failed to maintain.

?U.S. Supreme Court Case: Tumey v. Ohio

Tumey was tried by a judge who had a financial interest in the outcome of the case. The Supreme Court ruled that this violated due process because the judge's impartiality was compromised. This case highlights the need for judges to avoid any actions that could compromise their impartiality, as Judge Bull did by ordering an apology influenced by bias.

U.S. Supreme Court Case: Terry v. Ohio?

Police officers stopped and frisked Terry without a warrant. The Supreme Court ruled that the stop and frisk were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio addresses the broader context of police interactions with citizens, highlighting the potential for racial profiling and the importance of protecting constitutional rights.

These cases collectively address the critical issues of freedom of speech, racial discrimination, judicial impartiality, and the protection of constitutional rights, all of which are relevant to the actions of Judge Bull and the treatment of Mr. Burks. They provide a legal framework for understanding the violations committed by Judge Bull and the broader implications for judicial conduct and constitutional protections.

Historical Context of Racial Discrimination

The compelled apology also echoes historical practices of racial subjugation and respectability politics, where African Americans were often forced to perform acts of contrition to appease those in authority. Such practices are remnants of Jim Crow laws, which enforced racial hierarchy and degradation. Forcing a Black man to apologize to a police officer under the guise of judicial authority perpetuates this historical injustice, making the punishment not only unusual but cruel in its disregard for the dignity and equal treatment of Mr. Burks.

?Muhammad Ali faced constant harassment from law enforcement and the government, especially after refusing to be drafted into the Vietnam War. He famously stated, "I ain't got no quarrel with them Viet Cong... They never called me n****r."

Civil rights leader John Lewis was beaten by police during the Selma to Montgomery march in 1965, known as "Bloody Sunday." His skull was fractured, and the event became a key moment in the civil rights movement.

Eric Garner's death in 2014 after being placed in a chokehold by a New York City police officer became a rallying point for the Black Lives Matter movement. His last words, "I can't breathe," became a slogan for protests against police brutality.

Freddie Gray died in 2015 from injuries sustained while in police custody in Baltimore. His death led to widespread protests and highlighted issues of police violence and systemic racism.

White Fragility

?In 2011, Robin DiAngelo coined the term “white fragility” to describe the disbelieving defensiveness that white people exhibit when their ideas about race and racism are challenged—and particularly when they feel implicated in white supremacy. Id.

?As Robin DiAngelo , a white academic and educator writes in “White Fragility”, "Most white people have limited information about what racism is and how it works. For many white people, an isolated course taken in college or required 'cultural competency training' in their workplace is the only time they may encounter a direct and sustained challenge to their racial reality. But even in this arena, not all multicultural courses or training programs talk directly about racism, much less address white privilege. It is far more the norm for these courses and programs to use racially coded language such as 'urban,' 'inner city,' and 'disadvantaged,' but rarely use 'white' or 'over-advantaged' or 'privileged.'" (DiAngelo, 2018)

?DiAngelo forces us to see that "all politics have rested on identities, and that those identities are critical features of wrestling with how we have gone wrong in the effort to set things right—which too often has meant make them white. We cannot possibly name the nemeses of democracy or truth or justice or equality if we cannot name the identities to which they have been attached. For most of our history, straight white men have been involved in a witness protection program that guards their identities and absolves them of their crimes while offering them a future free of past encumbrances and sins." Id.

?Similarly, "racism—like sexism and other forms of oppression—occurs when a racial group’s prejudice is backed by legal authority and institutional control. This authority and control transforms individual prejudices into a far-reaching system that no longer depends on the good intentions of individual actors; it becomes the default of the society and is reproduced automatically. Racism is a system. And I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the intersection of race and gender in the example of suffrage; white men granted suffrage to women, but only granted full access to white women. Women of color were denied full access until the Voting Rights Act of 1964." Id.

?"The past was great for white people (and white men in particular) because their positions went largely unchallenged. In understanding the power of white fragility, we have to notice that the mere questioning of those positions triggered the white fragility that Trump capitalized on. There has been no actual loss of power for the white elite, who have always controlled our institutions and continue to do so by a very wide margin. Of the fifty richest people on earth, twenty-nine are American." Id.

?DiAngelo also notes, "White men, of course, are also racially fragile, but I have not seen their fragility manifest itself in cross-racial discussions as actual crying. Their fragility most commonly shows up as varying forms of dominance and intimidation, including these: control of the conversation by speaking first, last, and most often; arrogant and disingenuous invalidation of racial inequality via 'just playing the devil’s advocate'; simplistic and presumptuous proclamations of 'the answer' to racism ('People just need to . . . '); playing the outraged victim of 'reverse racism'; accusations that the legendary 'race card' is being played; silence and withdrawal; hostile body language; channel-switching ('The true oppression is class!'); intellectualizing and distancing ('I recommend this book . . . '); 'correcting' the racial analysis of people of color and white women; pompously explaining away racism and the experiences of people of color." Id.

"White men get to authorize what constitutes pain and whose pain is legitimate. When white men come to the rescue of white women in cross-racial settings, patriarchy is reinforced as they play savior to our damsel in distress. By legitimating white women as the targets of harm, both white men and women accrue social capital. People of color are abandoned and left to bear witness as the resources meted out to white people actually increase—yet again—on their backs." Id.

DiAngelo further explains, "Romanticized recollections of the past and calls for a return to former ways are a function of white privilege, which manifests itself in the ability to remain oblivious to our racial history. Claiming that the past was socially better than the present is also a hallmark of white supremacy. Consider any period in the past from the perspective of people of color: 246 years of brutal enslavement; the rape of black women for the pleasure of white men and to produce more enslaved workers; the selling off of black children; the attempted genocide of Indigenous people, Indian removal acts, and reservations; indentured servitude, lynching, and mob violence; sharecropping; Chinese exclusion laws; Japanese American internment; Jim Crow laws of mandatory segregation; black codes; bans on black jury service; bans on voting; imprisoning people for unpaid work; medical sterilization and experimentation; employment discrimination; educational discrimination; inferior schools; biased laws and policing practices; redlining and subprime mortgages; mass incarceration; racist media representations; cultural erasures, attacks, and mockery; and untold and perverted historical accounts, and you can see how a romanticized past is strictly a white construct. But it is a powerful construct because it calls out to a deeply internalized sense of superiority and entitlement and the sense that any advancement for people of color is an encroachment on this entitlement." Id.

Judicial Overreach and Precedent

Abuse of Judicial Authority?

Judge Bull's order represents an abuse of judicial discretion. Courts have ruled against arbitrary and capricious actions by judges that extend beyond the prescribed legal penalties. In ?United States v. Bajakajian , 524 U.S. 321 (1998), the Supreme Court held that excessive fines are unconstitutional. By analogy, an additional punitive measure, like a compelled apology, which is not sanctioned by statute or proportional to the offense, constitutes judicial overreach. United States v. Bajakajian , 524 U.S. 321 (1998)

?A punitive forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause if it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant's offense. ?Id

?Setting a Dangerous Precedent

Allowing such actions to stand sets a dangerous precedent where judges could impose arbitrary and non-legal penalties based on personal biases or societal pressures. This undermines the rule of law and the principles of fair and consistent justice.

Judge Bull's order for Mr. Burks to apologize, after he had already paid his fine, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. It is disproportionate to the offense, violates Mr. Burks' dignity and First Amendment rights, and reflects an abuse of judicial authority. This action, steeped in historical and racial bias, not only degrades Mr. Burks but also undermines public confidence in the judiciary's impartiality and adherence to constitutional principles. Therefore, the additional punishment should be deemed unconstitutional and void.

The Supreme Court in Williams v. Pennsylvania, stated, “No attorney is more integral to the accusatory process than a prosecutor who participates in a major adversary decision. When a judge has served as an advocate for the State in the very case the court is now asked to adjudicate, a serious question arises as to whether the judge, even with the most diligent effort, could set aside any personal interest in the outcome. There is, furthermore, a risk that the judge ‘would be so psychologically wedded’ to his or her previous position as a prosecutor that the judge ‘would consciously or unconsciously avoid the appearance of having erred or changed position.’ In addition, the judge's ‘own personal knowledge and impression’ of the case, acquired through his or her role in the prosecution, may carry far more weight with the judge than the parties' arguments to the court.” Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. 1 (2016)

In the case of “Williams v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court emphasized the critical role of a prosecutor in the accusatory process and the potential conflicts that arise when a judge has previously served as an advocate for the state in the same case. The Court noted that such a situation raises serious questions about the judge's ability to remain impartial. The judge might be so psychologically invested in their prior position that they could consciously or unconsciously avoid the appearance of having erred or changed their stance. This risk of bias is compounded by the judge's personal knowledge and impressions from their prior role, which might unduly influence their decisions. Id.

This principle directly applies to the case of Reginald Burkes. Judge Nicholas Bull's actions in requiring Burkes to apologize, despite Burkes having fulfilled his legal obligations, reflect an overreach of judicial authority that raises questions about impartiality and bias. If Judge Bull had previously been involved in the prosecutorial process or had similar entanglements, it would exacerbate concerns about his ability to impartially adjudicate Burkes' case. The appearance of bias, whether conscious or unconscious, undermines the integrity of the judicial process and suggests a failure to uphold the fair and impartial standards required by the judiciary. This makes the application of the principles from Williams v. Pennsylvania highly relevant, as it underscores the importance of addressing and preventing judicial bias to ensure justice is served.

?Conclusion

There is no mistake: in the Burks’ case the police officer was racist in his encounter with Mr. Burks', the judge was racist in his handling Mr. Burks' Case, and Mr. Burks was a victim of that racism. As ministers of justice, attorneys and judges are among the few people who do not have the luxury of denying racism and its roots in the fabric of our laws.

The fact that a Municipal Court Judge can intimidate a Black man into submitting and asking for forgiveness for exercising his First Amendment rights is a leap in the wrong direction. The reason for this article is not only to showcase what is happening but to explain why it shocks the conscience. As a Black person, the idea that a judge can so cavalierly put a man's livelihood in jeopardy for 10 days because he did not adhere to the unspoken rules all Black people in the US must face is outrageous.

Black people have been tasked with shouldering the emotions of law enforcement. We are taught that if we do not lower ourselves like the staff at Windsor Castle, we deserve to be punished. If we don’t allow the officer to look cool, we shall be punished.

Don’t you dare tell the officer that they are wrong, or you will be punished. Black people are “just comply” to death in America. ?

Similar to Rosa Parks, Burks challenged the status quo and, like Rosa Parks, was penalized for it. Many will say, well, the charges were dismissed, this case is done. This is simply not true. Judges are people who reflect the population of their communities. Since the Civil Rights Act was passed, besides the passing of time, there have been no major efforts in educating White people on how to deal with the loss of their ability to reign terror over Black people. Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) objectives are often superficial, underfunded, and designed to check boxes rather than work for the long haul. Thus, why states can undo them so easily.

The real world is filled with judges like the one in Mr. Burks’ case who most likely never had and never will complete bias testing, never had to take a class on racism, and never had to discuss how to hold judges accountable. After the Chauvin conviction, one would think Bar Associations across the land would push to ensure judges are held to the living and organic standards of the Constitution. This task is left to the individual members of the bar. ?

Attorneys and attorneys turned judges are often referred to as ministers of justice, entrusted with upholding the highest standards of fairness, integrity, and impartiality within the legal system. This noble calling compels us not only to seek justice for our clients but also to ensure that the broader principles of justice are consistently applied and protected. We are called upon to hold ourselves and our colleagues accountable, to challenge injustices wherever they arise, and to strive for a legal system free of bias and discrimination.

The case of Reginald Burkes serves as a poignant reminder of this duty. By recognizing and addressing the racial biases and judicial overreach exhibited in this case, we reaffirm our commitment to the fundamental tenets of justice and equality. It is through such vigilance and dedication that we can hope to maintain public trust in the legal system and work towards a more just and equitable society.

Works Cited:

American Bar Association. (2019). Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Retrieved from Americanbar.org website: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/

Case dismissed for man ordered to issue written apology to Ozark officer. (2024, May 30). Retrieved June 1, 2024, from www.wlox.com website: https://www.wlox.com/video/2024/05/30/case-dismissed-man-ordered-issue-written-apology-ozark-officer/

CASSENS WEISS, D. (2024, May 16). Driver won’t obey judge’s order to apologize for his command to police officer. Retrieved June 1, 2024, from ABA Journal website: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/driver-wont-obey-judges-order-to-apologize-for-his-command-to-police-officer#google_vignette

DiAngelo, R. J. (2018). White fragility: Why it’s so hard for white people to talk about racism. Boston: Beacon Press.

Lambert, J. (2024, April 18). Man must apologize to Ozark officer who wrote speeding citation or be jailed. Retrieved June 1, 2024, from https://www.wtvy.com website: https://www.wtvy.com/2024/04/18/man-must-apologize-ozark-officer-who-wrote-speeding-citation-or-be-jailed/

Storey, T., & Lambert, J. (2024, May 29). Case dismissed for man ordered to issue written apology to Ozark officer. Retrieved June 1, 2024, from https://www.wtvy.com website: https://www.wtvy.com/2024/05/29/case-dismissed-man-ordered-issue-written-apology-ozark-officer/

42 U.S.C.A. § 1983

U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 1?

U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 6?

U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 8?

U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 14?

Model Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 1

Model Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2

Model Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3

Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)

Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97 (1976)

Nance v. Ward , 597 U.S. 159 (2022)

Solem v. Helm , 463 U.S. 277 (1983),?

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

United States v. Bajakajian , 524 U.S. 321 (1998)?

United States v. Tsarnaev , 595 U.S. 302 (2022)?

W. Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette , 319 U.S. 624, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 87 L. Ed. 1628 (1943)