◆ SpookStack

118 Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1870 that treatment is well within responsive limits. We have said before, and we repeat, such claims should’ not be rade at all unless they are very sound. The proposition that counsel cun disresard the court’s instructions, obtain a rebuke and then preserve the . Incident as insurance in the event the case is lost, does not sit well. It appears to me that Judge Perry displayed wisdom and patience in a vigorously contested case with contentious counsel and that his rulings followed the governing rules of evidence, producing a fair trial for the plaintiffs. 6. The Contempts. The authority of a federal judge to punish summarily for conduct constituting contempt committed “in the actual presence of court” as well as the procedure to be followed, is established by Rule 42(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 42(a) reads: (a) Summary Disposition. A criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the judge certifies that he saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt and that it was committed in the actual presence of the court. The order of contempt shall recite the facts and shall be signed by the judge and entered of record. The authority to punish summarily applies to behavior of counsel. Sacher v. United States, 348 U.S. 1 (1952). See also United States v. Wilson, 421 U.S. 309 (1975). In Sacher the issue arose from a nine month trial, one-half the length of the present case. During the Sacher trial defense counsel, in the presence of the trial judge and in the face of repeated warnings from him that their conduct was regarded as contemptuous, persisted in a course of conduct that was highly contemptuous and that tended to disrupt and delay the trial and possibly to cause a mistrial. Upon receiving the verdict of the jury at the conclusion of the trial, the trial judge, without further notice or hearing, immediately filed a certificate under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure summarily finding such counsel guilty of af