The DUMBEST Courtroom Defendants OF ALL TIME…
.
.
.
The Dumbest Courtroom Defendants of All Time: When Justice Meets Pure Chaos
In the age of viral clips and livestreams, courts are no longer distant, solemn temples of law. With Zoom hearings, digital records and 24/7 social media, the courtroom has become an unexpected stage—one where some defendants seem determined to sabotage themselves in spectacular fashion.
From people logging into virtual court with obscene screen names, to smoking blunts on camera, faking heart attacks, taunting judges, and even mooning the bench, a series of astonishing cases across the United States has turned routine hearings into viral spectacles.
This is the story behind some of the dumbest courtroom defendants of all time—and what their behavior says about ego, entitlement, and the fragile boundary between justice and entertainment.
A Zoom Name That Nearly Led to Contempt
On paper, Nathaniel Saxton’s case was minor. He was appearing via Zoom for a routine matter in a Michigan court presided over by Judge Jeff Middleton. But Saxton managed to turn a mundane hearing into internet legend with nothing more than a username.
As the session began, Middleton did a standard roll call.
“Good morning, sir. What’s your name?”
A young man appeared on screen, confused.
“Me?”
“Yeah, you.”
The judge stared at his screen in disbelief. Under the defendant’s video feed, the name didn’t say “Nathaniel Saxton.”
It said: “Buttf*er 3000.”**
Middleton leaned in, incredulous.
“Your name’s not ‘Buttf***er 3000,’ you yo. You logged into my court with that as your screen name.”
Saxton looked genuinely shocked as he glanced at his own display.
“Sir, I don’t believe I typed anything like that…”
The judge wasn’t amused.
“What kind of idiot logs into court like that?”
Whether it was a prank, a joke between friends, or an embarrassing oversight, Saxton’s attempt at damage control wasn’t enough. Judge Middleton sent him to the virtual waiting room to “sit in limbo” and think about what he called himself online.
Saxton narrowly escaped a contempt citation—but his clip exploded online as a symbol of the dangerous collision between casual internet culture and centuries-old courtroom decorum.
Wearing the Evidence to Court
While Saxton’s case was digital-age stupidity, Nelson Walker’s misstep was analog and old-fashioned.
In 2011, Walker was arrested in Miami after allegedly stuffing his pants with Miami Dolphins jerseys at the team store in Sun Life Stadium. He was charged with third-degree theft.
When he appeared for arraignment before Judge Diane Ward, he walked into court wearing… a Miami Dolphins jersey.
The judge looked at him, glanced at the paperwork, and read the charge:
“All right. You’re charged with stealing a Dolphins jersey.”
Walker quickly pointed to the shirt.
“This ain’t the one, y’all. No, ma’am. This ain’t the one.”
He went further, insisting:
“I ain’t took no jersey. I ain’t took damn jersey.”
His public defender tried to poke holes in the police report, even questioning whether the items involved were “two hats or one hat.” But the optics were brutal: a man accused of stealing a Dolphins jersey, standing in front of the judge in a Dolphins jersey, with 29 prior felonies on his record.
Ward set bond at $5,000 and banned him permanently from Sun Life Stadium, later renamed Hard Rock Stadium. Prosecutors ultimately declined to pursue the case, but Walker’s court outfit went down as a textbook example of what not to wear to your own hearing.
“Make My Bond a Trillion”
Some defendants try to minimize their legal exposure. Antonio Swanson seemed determined to do the opposite.
Swanson was charged with murder and aggravated murder in Ohio after opening fire on his sister, Willita Hill, and her boyfriend, killing Hill after a dispute involving his car. When he appeared in court for his bond hearing, his behavior stunned everyone.
The judge asked the basic question:
“Do you have an attorney?”
“I ain’t got no money,” Swanson replied.
When the prosecution requested a $2 million bond, Swanson interrupted:
“Make it three then. I don’t care. At the court’s discretion.”
In a later hearing, he escalated further:
“Sir, make my bond a trillion.”
As the prosecutor calmly argued for a bond of $5 million, Swanson flashed gang signs to the camera, repeatedly shouted “Stand your ground, no retreat,” and responded to statements about his sister’s murder with chilling indifference.
When the prosecutor described how he shot his sister, including firing additional shots as she lay on the ground in front of their father, Swanson said:
“Who gives a f***? She ain’t never bought me nothing. She stole my car.”
His attitude backfired spectacularly. Instead of the $5 million the state requested, the judge increased the bond to $15 million, telling him:
“Based on your request, this bond’s going to be $15 million.”
Swanson reacted with perverse pride:
“Make me look good. Make me look good.”
He later pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and felonious assault—but not before turning his own bond hearing into a public case study in self‑sabotage.
“If You Ever Find Out Who Did This…”
Some defendants are their own worst enemy without even realizing it.
In Georgia, Christopher McNab was convicted of murdering his two-week-old daughter, Caliyah. The case was harrowing: the baby disappeared from her sleep area, her body later found hidden in a wooded area inside a gym bag. Both parents, McNab and Courtney Bell, were drug users, and the jury had to decide who was responsible for the infant’s death.
The jury ultimately found McNab guilty on all eight counts against him. At sentencing, he addressed the court, denying he had anything to do with his baby’s death.
“I’m innocent. I didn’t do it. I’ve maintained that the whole time.”
He complained that evidence of his domestic violence history had been used unfairly.
“Just because somebody has domestic abuse issues with their spouse doesn’t mean they would put their hands on their kids.”
After hearing him out, Judge John Ott asked a simple but devastating question:
“You claim you’re innocent. So you tell me what sentence the man or woman that you claim did this should receive, if we ever find out who did it.”
McNab paused, then answered:
“If you ever find out who did it, they deserve to be under the jail… They ought to get the maximum sentence.”
Ott agreed.
“On the crime of malice murder, I sentence you to life in confinement without parole…”
In trying to condemn the hypothetical killer of his daughter, McNab had, in effect, endorsed his own life sentence.
Committing the Crime on Camera—For the Judge
In the era of remote hearings, some defendants seem to forget that the judge can actually see them.
In Michigan, Corey Harris had been charged with driving with a suspended license. He logged into Zoom court for his hearing with Judge Cedric Simpson—while behind the wheel of a car.
The public defender noticed first:
“Mr. Harris, are you driving?”
Harris tried to minimize it:
“Uh, I’m just pulling into my doctor’s office.”
As he casually parked, the judge set down his pen, stared at the screen, and then at the file in front of him.
“Okay, so maybe I don’t understand something. This is a driving license suspended case… and he was just driving and he didn’t have a license.”
The prosecutor confirmed the facts, and Simpson checked the record.
“No, I’m looking at his record. He doesn’t have a license. He’s suspended… and he’s just driving.”
Realization dawned on Harris as the judge revoked his bond on the spot and ordered him to turn himself in by 6 p.m. that day.
Harris could only whisper, “Oh my god,” as the magnitude of what he had just done—essentially proving the charge in front of the judge—sank in.
Rolling and Smoking a Blunt in Virtual Court
If driving on camera is bad, smoking drugs on camera is worse.
In another Michigan Zoom hearing, Anthony Lane appeared from what he thought was the virtual waiting room. Charged with drug possession and out on bond, Lane believed his camera was off.
It wasn’t.
The prosecutor informed Judge Cedric Simpson:
“Your honor, it appeared that earlier in this time block, Mr. Lane was rolling a blunt and might have been smoking.”
The court then watched footage from the virtual waiting period: Lane openly rolling what the prosecutor described as a blunt, then bringing it to his lips and smoking, oblivious to the fact that everyone—from other defendants to the judge—could see him.
His lawyer, caught off-guard, requested an adjournment to speak with her client.
Simpson, visibly displeased, reminded Lane that he was required to drug test twice a week as part of his bond, and ordered him to report that day for another test. Lane said he had “no ride.”
The judge had an answer:
“Well, you better find somebody to get you a ride down here. I’m ordering a test. You’re the one that brought this on yourself.”
He warned Lane that he was “one warrant away” from a free ride—this time, to jail. Lane later failed to report to community corrections, stopped appearing in court, and effectively turned himself into a fugitive—after being caught high, on camera, in court.
Mooning the Judge
There is contempt of court. And then there is literal contempt.
In Michigan, Hassan Chokr (also spelled Choker) landed in court after a disturbing incident at a synagogue, where witnesses said he launched into an anti‑Semitic tirade, making threats and filming himself. When asked by an officer if he planned to return to the synagogue, he chillingly replied:
“I’m headed to another synagogue. I’m headed to go see some more Jewish boys.”
He was later charged with ethnic intimidation. During a Zoom hearing before Judge Regina Thomas, Chokr’s behavior spiraled.
First, he refused to give his name.
“Sir, state your name for the record.”
“Defense.”
When the judge insisted on decorum, he flipped her off on camera.
“Let the record reflect that he just gave the court the finger.”
As he continued to shout and point at the camera, the judge muted his microphone. But Chokr wasn’t finished. While still on video, he stood up and dropped his pants, turning around to show the judge his bare backside.
The judge remained composed.
“And now he has removed his pants to show the court his backside. I’m putting him in the waiting room.”
Chokr was removed from the hearing and later deemed mentally unfit to stand trial, a finding that likely spared him even harsher consequences for his outrageous conduct.
“You’re Not Going to Tell Me I Can’t Go Home”
In Ohio, Judge Gary Bennett found himself in a tense standoff with Ebony Burks, who had been charged with domestic violence and assault, including allegedly attacking her own grandfather.
At arraignment, the judge explained the charges and potential penalties. Burks pleaded not guilty. Bennett then set a $7,500 bond and issued a standard no-contact order with the alleged victims—meaning Burks could not return to their shared residence.
Burks was stunned.
“So you don’t tell me I can’t go home.”
“I’m telling you, you can’t go home,” the judge replied.
She pushed back:
“How you gonna tell me I can’t go to my home?”
“I just did,” Bennett said.
“Well, I bet I do.”
That was the line.
“Well, then you’re in contempt, young lady, and you’ve got 30 days.”
As the judge spoke, Burks said “Bye” and tried to walk out of court.
“You’re not going—you’re not—whoa, whoa, whoa. Get back. Get back. Get back. That’s another 30 days. That’s 60 days.”
She continued to talk back, prompting the judge to increase the contempt time:
“90 days. 120 days… 180 days… 200 days… 300 days.”
By the time deputies removed her from the courtroom, Burks had stacked up months of jail time—not for the original charges, but for her refusal to follow basic courtroom rules. Her contempt sentence was later reduced to 88 days, still the highest such penalty Judge Bennett had issued.
“We Are in Charge of the Courtroom”
Self-styled “sovereign citizens” have a long history of trying to outmaneuver judges with pseudo‑legal arguments. Joshua Martinez took that approach in a Las Vegas courtroom, appearing before Judge Ann Zimmerman Ellsworth for a charge of driving with a suspended license.
When asked for his plea, Martinez said he “had a couple questions” and began challenging the nature of the charge.
“Is that a criminal offense or civil?”
“Criminal offense,” the judge replied.
“Is there a sworn statement against me or injured party?”
He then tried the classic sovereign tactic:
“Okay, and is there an injured party or damage to property here…? The charge is brought by the City of Las Vegas?”
“Yes.”
“So the city is the victim? They’re the victim?”
Judge Ellsworth tried to steer him back to the case, but Martinez interrupted her one time too many.
“Mr. Martinez, I am in charge of this courtroom and you’re going to stop it.”
He responded with a line that has become infamous among court-watchers:
“We are in charge of the courtroom.”
That was it. The judge turned to the marshal:
“Would you show Mr. Martinez the inside of our holding tank, please? You’re not going to tell me who’s in charge of my courtroom.”
Later, she gave him a chance to apologize and proceed normally.
“I will give you an opportunity to apologize if you choose to do so and behave in a manner that I consider appropriate for a courtroom.”
Martinez refused.
“All I was asking was legal questions.”
“To tell me that you are in charge of this courtroom and tell me that I am in contempt is not asking legal questions,” Ellsworth responded. “It is contempt of court.”
She sentenced him to 15 days in jail for direct contempt—a harsh lesson that constitutional rights do not include the right to hijack proceedings.
When a Murder Trial Turns Into a Performance
Of all the cases, perhaps none was as chillingly bizarre as that of Ronnie O’Neal III, tried in Florida for the brutal 2018 murders of his girlfriend Kenyatta Barron and their 9-year-old daughter, as well as the attempted murder of his 8-year-old son.
First responders were drawn to the family home after a harrowing 911 call. A woman’s voice screamed:
“Help me, I’m shot… please, help me…”
Then, in the background, a male voice shouted religious phrases and incoherent rants. Later, O’Neal himself called 911, claiming he had been attacked by “white demons.”
When arrested, he invoked his right to an attorney. But by the time his case reached trial, he fired his lawyers and chose to represent himself.
His opening statement sounded less like a defense and more like a conspiracy‑laden speech:
“The evidence is going to show that we are under some of the most vicious, lying, fabricating, fictitious government you ever seen.”
Throughout the trial, O’Neal alternated between shouting, grandstanding, and accusing prosecutors of fabricating evidence. The most surreal moment came when he cross‑examined his own surviving son—the child he was accused of stabbing and setting on fire.
“Did I hurt you that night of this incident?”
“Yes,” the boy answered quietly.
“And how did I hurt you?”
“You stabbed me.”
During closing arguments, O’Neal continued to push the boundaries of courtroom decorum. At one point, he declared:
“If you think I’m here to play around with y’all, Goddamn—”
Judge Michelle Sisco cut him off:
“Mr. O’Neal, please stop using swearing language. It’s not appropriate in a closing argument.”
Despite his theatrics—and his late‑stage, partial admission (“I did kill…” followed by caveats)—the jury found him guilty on all counts. Judge Sisco, visibly affected, said:
“This is the worst case I have ever seen as far as the facts go. There is no way any person with any feeling could have witnessed or seen the photos of what occurred that night and not be haunted for the rest of your life.”
She sentenced O’Neal to life in prison without parole, plus additional consecutive terms.
Flirting, Flipping Off, and “Adios”
Not all courtroom disasters involve murder. Some are simply cases of spectacularly poor judgment.
In Miami, 18-year-old Penelope Soto appeared before Judge Jorge Rodríguez-Chomat on a drug possession charge involving Xanax bars. At first, the hearing was routine. The judge asked about her income and assets to set bond. She giggled, flipped her hair, and started bragging about her jewelry.
“I own a lot of jewelry,” she said. “Like Rick Ross.”
The judge wasn’t amused and asked if she had taken any drugs in the last 24 hours. She said no.
He set bond at $5,000. As she turned to leave, she tossed off a flippant:
“Adios.”
That one word instantly changed her situation.
“Come back, ma’am. Come back.”
When she returned, Rodríguez-Chomat doubled her bond to $10,000.
“Are you serious?” Soto exclaimed.
“I am serious. Adios.”
She flipped him off.
“Did you say ‘f*** you’?”
“Actually, I did,” she answered.
The judge held her in direct criminal contempt and sentenced her to 30 days in jail.
Days later, Soto returned to court a very different person: sober, tearful, and remorseful.
“My behavior was very irrational,” she told the judge. “I apologize not only to the court and to you, but to my family.”
After a stern lecture about how close she had come to a lifetime felony record, Rodríguez-Chomat vacated the contempt finding and canceled the remainder of her jail sentence—a rare second chance in a court system where most of the defendants in these stories would only compound their punishment.
When the Show Is Over
From obscene Zoom usernames to fake heart attacks; from wearing stolen jerseys to lighting blunts on camera; from defiant sovereign citizens to self‑represented killers who cross‑examine their own children, these cases highlight a strange new intersection of courtroom reality and viral spectacle.
Judges, sworn to uphold the law and maintain dignity in their courtrooms, find themselves dealing not only with crime but with performance: defendants who seem to view the proceedings as a stage, a game, or a platform for rebellion. Some are mentally ill. Some are high. Some are arrogant. Some are simply foolish.
But the pattern is clear:
When defendants treat court like a joke, the consequences are rarely funny. Bonds go up. Contempt is added. Plea deals are endangered. Sentences get longer. And the clip lives forever online as a cautionary tale.
In the end, the courtroom is not YouTube, not TikTok, not a comment section or a group chat. It is the place where freedom, reputation and sometimes life itself are on the line.
And as these “dumbest defendants” have learned the hard way, a judge’s patience may stretch—but it always has a limit.
