In Re Grossman

Petitioner, an attorney, seeks annulment of an order of direct contempt issued by the Municipal Court of Sonoma County at the conclusion of a criminal trial of a number of defendants, some of whom were represented by petitioner. The order adjudged petitioner in contempt and imposed a fine of $500 and a sentence of imprisonment for five days.

We summarily denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus on January 3, 1972. On January 24, 1972, while a new petition was pending in the California Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court decided In re Little, a per curiam opinion reported in 404 U.S. 553 [ 30 L.Ed.2d 708 , 92 S.Ct. 659 ]. The Little case, along with In re Hallinan (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1179, 1182, 1183 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 459 P.2d 255 ], was cited by the California Supreme Court in its order to show cause before our court why the relief prayed for should not be granted.

Mindful of a special responsibility which rests heavily upon our shoulders *628 when called upon to examine the conduct of representatives of the bench and bar, in a judicial proceeding, we believe that a preliminary discussion and review of some basic concepts is in order.

There…

I concur with that portion of the majority opinion which sustains the charges in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order of contempt. I respectfully disagree, however, with the conclusion of my distinguished brethren that the charges in paragraph 1 have not been sustained.

It seems to me that some fundamental principles must be recognized at the very outset of the consideration of this case. First of all, we are dealing with the conduct of an attorney vis-a-vis the conduct of a trial judge during the course of a trial in the presence of a jury composed of laymen. On its face this is a setting, which should never be subjected toi the trauma that inevitably flows from a verbal conflict between counsel and court. That such should not occur is particularly true in California, where more than ample means and procedures are provided to parties and attorneys to avoid embarking on any potential collision course with a particular judge. For example,, a trial judge may be disqualified peremptorily (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6) or upon a showing of prejudice (Code Civ. Proc., § 170).

Once the trial begins, however, every lawyer should be conclusively presumed to know that it is totally improper for…

Petitioner, an attorney, seeks annulment of an order of direct contempt issued by the Municipal Court of Sonoma County at the conclusion of a criminal trial of a number of defendants, some of whom were represented by petitioner. The order adjudged petitioner in contempt and imposed a fine of $500 and a sentence of imprisonment for five days.

We summarily denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus on January 3, 1972. On January 24, 1972, while a new petition was pending in the California Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court decided In re Little, a per curiam opinion reported in 404 U.S. 553 [ 30 L.Ed.2d 708 , 92 S.Ct. 659 ]. The Little case, along with In re Hallinan (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1179, 1182, 1183 [ 81 Cal. Rptr. 1 , 459 P.2d 255 ], was cited by the California Supreme Court in its order to show cause before our court why the relief prayed for should not be granted.

Mindful of a special responsibility which rests heavily upon our shoulders when called upon to examine the conduct of representatives of the bench and bar, in a judicial proceeding, we believe that a preliminary discussion and review of some basic concepts is in…