Why Judge John J. Russo’s Duct-Taping of a Defendant Should Alarm Every American
In a courtroom—where justice is supposed to be blind, balanced, and bound by the Constitution—an American judge once ordered officers to duct-tape a man’s mouth shut.
This happened in 2018, in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The man was Franklyn Williams, a Black defendant trying to speak during his sentencing. The judge was John J. Russo, who not only presided over the case but made the call to silence him physically, in front of the entire courtroom.
This wasn’t a scene from another country or a dramatized movie. It was a real moment in an American court—one that should disturb anyone who believes in due process, human dignity, or the rule of law.
The Law Was Clear. The Judge Crossed the Line.
Every person—regardless of race, background, or criminal charges—has the constitutional right to be heard in court. The Sixth Amendment guarantees this. And while judges are tasked with maintaining order, there are clear legal limits to how far they can go.
In Illinois v. Allen (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court said a judge may use restraints as a last resort to manage courtroom disruptions, but only in ways that do not degrade or humiliate a defendant. Duct-taping someone’s mouth—especially a Black man in a system already marked by racial disparities—is not just degrading. It is dehumanizing.
The ACLU’s coverage made it plain: “There is no excuse for a judge to treat anyone this way.” This wasn’t about courtroom decorum. It was about power—and its abusive use.
This Wasn’t an Isolated Moment of Poor Judgment
Some may be tempted to explain this away: “Maybe he was frustrated. Maybe the defendant was being disruptive.” But the truth is, Judge Russo has a pattern of crossing legal and ethical lines.
In 2023, Russo was again in the news for improper ex parte communications—that is, private conversations with prosecutors about a case, without the defense present (Cleveland.com). These types of backdoor talks are explicitly forbidden under judicial ethics rules. They tilt the scales of justice. And they betray the public trust.
Retired Judge Janet Burnside criticized his actions, noting in a court opinion on judicial misconduct that Russo had directed a court staff member to contact prosecutors—alone—about a key evidentiary matter during a live trial. The communications were ruled substantive and ex parte in nature, violating principles of impartiality and transparency.
This Isn’t Just a “Black Issue.” It’s an American One.
Even if you don’t often think about racial justice or court reform, this should still matter to you.
Because if a judge can duct-tape this person’s mouth, who’s next?
When judges use their position to humiliate someone in open court, or when they make secretive decisions outside of legal channels, the entire system cracks. Today it may be a Black man society deems unworthy of sympathy. Tomorrow, it could be your friend. Your son. Your colleague. Or you.
Judge Russo now wants to be elected to a higher court—the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals in 2026. That means he could end up ruling on cases that impact businesses, families, public safety, and constitutional rights. Do we really want someone with this track record reviewing others’ legal outcomes?
What Should Happen Now
We’re not asking for vengeance. We’re asking for accountability.
Judges are not above the law. And when a judge shows a pattern of misconduct—both physical and procedural—it’s up to the public, legal community, and media to say: This is not acceptable.
Here’s what you can do:
Share this article. Inform others who may not know the full story.
Question Judge Russo’s actions—every time he appears in public or politics.
Remember this when he appears on your ballot. A robe should not shield a person from scrutiny.
Learn More
🔗 Why Judge John J. Russo Should Not Be Elevated to Appeals Court – Black Vanguard Media
🔗 ACLU: A Man Wanted to Speak at His Trial. The Judge Taped His Mouth Shut.
A final thought:
The dignity of the court rests not in marble buildings or formal titles—but in how we treat those with the least power before the law. Judge Russo failed that test. And that should matter to all of us.
🖤 Black Vanguard Media: Truth. Accountability. Progress.
Judge Russo had so many options to choose from, rather than the one he chose. His sense of power, superiority and white male fragility was on display and showed who he really is. With the judicial temperament he displayed, If ever he shows up on my ballot, it’s a hard pass. No to Russo!