Judge fines himself when cellphone goes off in court

Photo credit WZZM 13, Grand Rapids

Judge Raymond P. Voet, the Chief Judge of the Ionia County, Michigan District 64-A Court, has a no cellphone policy posted in his courtroom. Phones interrupting his court are subject to confiscation. The phone owner will be cited for contempt. Typically, Judge Voet has imposed a $25 fine on cellphone violators before the phone can be reclaimed.

On April 12, as a prosecutor made a closing argument during a jury trial, the cellphone in Judge Voet's shirt pocket "began to emit a voice, [loudly requesting] that Voet give the phone voice commands for voice dialing." Embarrassed, Voet shushed his phone -- and then cited himself for contempt and, at the next recess, paid a $25 fine. Voet said if he can't live by the rules he enforces he has no business enforcing the rules.

The not-quite-a-legal-maxim involved in this case is what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

The story has made headlines around the world (see, for example, Lowering the Bar, Overlawyered, the Pakistan Daily Times, Ireland's Daily Edge, the Sydney Morning Herald, or Argentina's El Diario 24).

Now this is good... and bad.

It's a great stuff-happens, aw-shucks story, and the judge was obviously a good sport in following his own rules. It should have given readers of the Ionia Sentinel-Standard a warm chuckle.

But it's a little unsettling that a nice little story like this goes round-the-world viral. Remember: Dog-bites-man is not news, what makes the news is man-bites-dog. In other words, what makes the news is the rare, the unexpected, the surprising.

Is it really so surprising that a judge would follow the rules that he himself set? Gosh, I certainly hope that wouldn't be the case -- but a lot of editors seem to disagree.

And... if the common perception is that what Judge Voet did was rare, unexpected, surprising... newsworthy... how can we overcome it?