Peoria, Ill. man is charged with drug crimes after his wife calls in a domestic-violence complaint and tells the police where to find him (which happens to be suspiciously near a bag of cocaine). Man: I would like to testify in my own defense at trial. District court: Of course, but don't you dare say a word about all that domestic-violence stuff the jury just heard about. Man: But my entire defense is based on the theory that my wife framed me by faking a domestic-violence call to the police and planting the drugs near me. District court: I said don't you dare mention the domestic violence. Man's lawyer: It's actually pretty vital to his defense. District court: I will literally put you in jail. Lawyer: Wait, … me? District court: Yes, you. Federal prosecutor: Umm … we didn't ask for any of this, and maybe pump the brakes, judge. District court: Not a single brake pumped. Seventh Circuit: Realistically, the man's theory was fantastical hogwash, so “with some unease,” the district court's ruling couldn't have changed the outcome of the case (a conviction). But we'll take this opportunity to add that the judge really should have pumped those brakes and maybe chilled out on threatening to jail the guy's lawyer, who "conducted himself honorably and professionally throughout the trial." We totally disapprove of the judge who “directed the U.S. Marshals to take McGhee and defense counsel into custody if they violated the exclusionary order.” "We have read [the transcripts] many times and cringed each time."
The case is United States v. McGhee, No. 22-03306 (7th Cir. Dec. 21, 2023).