Order in the court: It's more than a motto

Forgive us if we're a little skeptical that the Supreme Court will do the right thing in a request filed recently by Joseph Aceto.

Aceto wants the court to dismiss charges of attempted murder and aggravated kidnapping in a 2000 crime for which he was already convicted. His reason? His victim killed herself a half year after Aceto was convicted of shooting at her and a companion and then abducting Holmquist at gunpoint and taking her into the North Fork where he kept her hostage.

With Holmquist's death went the prosecutor's star witness against Aceto. He argues that without her, there is no evidence against him.

The county attorney's office disagrees. There are other witnesses, including the man who was with Holmquist when Aceto was firing shots at them and then kidnapped Holmquist.

Aceto also asks that transcripts of Holmquist's testimony during Aceto's first trial in 2002 not be used during his next trial.

The Supreme Court ordered a new trial for Aceto because of what happened during Holmquist's testimony.

Aceto, 51, acted as his own lawyer, with public defender Mark Sullivan as "standby" attorney to assist him with legalities.

Imagine the dynamics in the courtroom when Aceto questioned Holmquist about what he did and what she did during her ordeal. She was forced by the court's rules to interact with the man who she alleged had shot at her, kidnapped her, and according to preliminary reports, raped her.

In his cross-examination, Aceto tried to question Holmquist about men she had been involved with, and he was repeatedly shut down by the prosecution's objections, upheld by District Judge Ted Lympus. Finally, Aceto exploded, shouting profanities while Holmquist cowered and sobbed on the witness chair. Aceto flung a court file and expletives toward Lympus, who ordered him removed from the courtroom.

Despite an apology the next day from Aceto, Lympus ordered him to remain in a jail cell for the rest of his trial. He could watch the proceedings on closed-circuit television and Sullivan would take over the case.

Jurors later said Aceto's outburst frightened some of them into tears. After closing arguments, the jury quickly convicted him of two counts of attempted homicide and one of aggravated kidnapping.

Aceto then appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, which ruled that Lympus had erred when he removed Aceto from the courtroom without warning him first about his behavior. Aceto was denied the chance to participate in his own defense, the court found.

Lympus has maintained that he did the right thing - protecting people in his courtroom and the integrity of the court by removing someone acting explosively.

In his new motion to the Supreme Court, Aceto's public defender, Glen Neier, argues that Aceto didn't have the chance to fully and fairly cross-examine Holmquist because of his removal from court.

We have said from the beginning that Lympus did what was necessary in court. And we don't think that Aceto's own unruly actions in court should be a legal gift to him now. Had he conducted himself as a civilized man, he could have finished cross-examining Holmquist.

When he was sentenced to 210 years in prison, Aceto told Lympus, "I don't give a damn about the penitentiary or how much time I get."

Convicted of a long list of violent crimes - including murder - before his attack on Holmquist, Aceto has spent most of his life in prison. We think that's where he belongs.

That one of his victims was later driven to end her own life with a gunshot only underscores the kind of damage Aceto can inflict.

We hope the Supreme Court doesn't reward Aceto, as it did in its earlier ruling, for his own bad behavior.