The first thing that you think about when you are called before a Judge is that you have to be respectful because you never know what attitude the judge sitting on the bench is going to display to you for your case.
Xiu Jin Teng, 40, decided against having a lawyer to defend her and as we know you are foolish to defend yourself in court, especially during a murder trial. Teng appeared not to like the way the judge was responding to the way she was asking questions so she got belligerent and that was a very bad idea.
From National Post:
The body of the 40-year-old was found almost five years ago in the basement apartment in Scarborough he shared with his wife, Xiu Jin Teng.
With his wrists and ankles bound, and a puncture wound suggestive of a needle on his arm, Huang died of ligature strangulation — and not, as Teng first said, a heart attack.
Now 40, she is pleading not guilty to first-degree murder, and, unusually, is representing herself at trial — occasionally with skill, but more reliably, shrilly.
Her voice rising occasionally to a shout, a consistent feature of Teng’s self-defence is her hectoring and berating of Ontario Superior Court Judge Ian MacDonnell. Tuesday, for instance, MacDonnell attempted to ask Teng if, now that Crown prosecutors had closed their case, she was intending to call evidence or testify.
The judge had explained to jurors that of course, the burden of proving Teng’s guilt lies wholly with prosecutors, and that she is not required to do anything to demonstrate she’s innocent.
You are biased and evil judge! You make many mistakes!
Then he turned to Teng, who got to her feet and immediately began barking at him. Though always accompanied by a Mandarin interpreter, Teng often addresses the judge directly in English.
“Your Honour, I repeat many times, you question me many times … I have many witnesses to call, four witnesses, why you ask me again? It’s obvious I have witnesses to call!”
MacDonnell then explained to the jurors, as he had before to Teng, that he’d determined her first witness “has no material evidence to give,” and that the other three are out of the country, two of them fugitives under the Immigration Act.
He then offered her, as he has before, the chance to play the evidence two gave at the earlier preliminary hearing and for the third, a videoed statement.
“Yes or no, Ms. Teng?” asked the judge.
“Your Honour, I told you many times,” Teng began.
“Yes or no?” the judge repeated.
“You should have given me defence lawyer,” she snapped. “First point! Second point, why you ask me question, it is not reasonable.”
“You lost your jurisdiction!” Teng shrieked.
“Thank you, Ms. Teng,” said MacDonnell.
“I’m not taking your thank you!” she said, her voice apparently lodged permanently in the same grating pitch.
MacDonnell told the jurors they can’t take Teng’s comments — surely a kindly way of putting it — into account.
“I have not responded to allegations why she is before the court without a lawyer,” he said. “It is not relevant.”
He then reminded the jurors that while there may be some things about the trial they don’t understand, “If our system of law is to work, it is fundamental that you take the law from me … Why she doesn’t have a lawyer is not relevant, and you must take my direction.”
He didn’t need to add, “Even if Ms. Teng doesn’t.”
With the evidence complete, the trial will resume with closing submissions on Jan. 3.
Honestly, I think she knows she’s in trouble. You can’t talk to a judge in his own courtroom like she did and not face some type of consequences.
Whatever happens, you can best believe she will learn her lesson. What do you think will happen? Will the judge’s memory be long or short with this woman? Share your comments below and let us know what you think will happen. Add this article to your Facebook/Twitter timeline.
h/t – National Post