◆ SpookStack

Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 83 up jin contempt, and the coverup goes on and on and on. Mr. Taylor: And Mr. Treviranus testified on Friday, Judge. The Court: I will hold you in contempt and I will now turn you over to the custody— Mr. Haas: O.K., Judge. . The Court: —of the U.S. Marshal for contempt, and hold you in custedy until tomorrow morning at 9:00 o’clock. Mr. Haas: All right, Judge, I would just— Mr. Taylor: There is a document right-here that - says there was— The Court: Court now stands in recess. Haas was taken into custody by the United States Marshal and ordered held until the following morning. An order was entered by the judge that day finding that Haas’ “statements and actions in the presence of the Court are serious and that it resulted in the obstruction of the administration of justice. . . .” The judge referred to no specific language, but did recite “certain statements in open court in the presence of the jury as set forth in the transcript of the Court proceedings cer- tified by the court reporter and attached hereto made a part hereof.” The court denied a motion for appeal bond, -and Haas remained in jail until the next morning. On the following day the judge reversed his ruling and heard extensive testimony from Hanrahan about the alleged arrangement. Unquestionably, a court has the power to punish sum- marily contemptuous conduct which occurs in the presence, sight, or hearing of a presiding judge. Hx parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 302-04 (1888). For example, that the contumacious refusal of a witness to testify, “may so directly obstruct a court in the performance of its duty as to justify punishment for contempt is so well settled as to need only statement.” Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U.S. 378, 382 (1919). The power of a federal court to punish immediately and summarily for “direct contempt” is codified in 18 U.S.C. § 401 which provides that: