◆ SpookStack

Memo Casper to Mohr Re: Contempt of Court Offutt went to the Supreme Court, where in a 6-3 opinion delivered by | ‘Mr. Justice Frankfurter conviction/évérsed, The court said this was the type , ‘of case which district judgesshould handle ''by not sitting themselves in judgment | j upon misconduct of counsel where the contempt charged is entangled with the judge's |: personal feeling against the lawyer."' The Court stated that when the case is remanc | [to district court a different judge should hear it. Offutt v. U,S., 348 U.S, 11 (1954) Offutt was brought before Judge Charles F. McLaughlin, Jr., and ag: found guilty of contempt. He appealed and the Court of Appeals again reversed, holding that Judge McLaughlin should have allowed Offutt to introduce evidence on ho he was treated by the judge and the prosecutor, and evidence to prove that his questi at the Peckham trizl] were relevant and proper rather than prejudicial. Offutt v. U. 232 F2d 69 (1956), cert. den. 76 Sup. Ct. 1049. Again the case went back, this tim before Judge R. N. Wilkin, and again there was a finding of contempt, with sentence of 48 hours. Offutt appealed again. The Court of Appeals found that the evidence si tained the conviction for discourtesy to Juage Holtzoff but did not sustain the charge baseless and prejudicial questions asked of witnesses in the Peckham trial. Senten was modified t6 commitment to the custody of the U.S, Marshal for 6 hours. Offutt v. U.S., 247 F2d 88 (1957), cert. den. 355 U.S, 856. | — The first inclinfaation on reading Offutt is to find in it the formula fo: handling contempt problems now plaguing the courts. The conclusion may prove {correct, but the confusion in the law prevents it.from being more than an "educated guess" at this time. Rule 42 (a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, on ‘''Criminal Contempt," provides that when the judge certifies that he saw or heard tt jcontempt, and that it was committed in the actual presence of the court, he may i punish "summarily," - right now. The fact that the contempt was directed toward t judge himself is immaterial. Rule 42 (b) provides, however, that except for those contempts covered by Rule 42 (a) all contempts shall be prosecut ed on notice and before a different judge unless the accused consents to the same judge. This is inl ~ {twith Offutt, indicating that if the judge allows the contempt to go unpunished until cn ,jof trial the matter must be heard by a different judge. But there is a decision, not 1ttexpressly overruled, to the contrary. In Sacher v. U.S., 343 U.S. 1952), reheai i}ing denied 343 U.S, 941, attorneys for Communist Party leaders were contemptuou: of the trial juage. That same judge (Medina) reserved judgment until the trial was ‘finished and then himself sentenced them for contempt. The attorneys appealed to :the Supreme Court. The only question before the Court was whether Judge Medina ! could do this (as Judge Hoffman did in Chicago recently) under Rule 42 (a), discusse - above. Ina 5-3 decision by Mr. Justice Jackson (Frankfurter, Black and Douglas dissenting; Clark not participating) the Court upheld Judge Medina. a meee er ‘ ee et Reve er ~— net ee, ees