United States v. Charles Clark Marshall, III

The defendants were indicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2101 , 1361 and 371, for alleged depredation of federal property in Seattle, Washington. Their trial commenced in the Western District of Washington on November 23, 1970, and continued until December 10, 1970, when the court declared a mistrial and summarily cited six of the seven defendants for criminal contempt.

The trial judge issued the first certificate of contempt in open court on December 14, 1970. During that session disruptions occurred which gave rise to the issuance of a second contempt certificate. 1 Each of the certificates imposed a six-month sentence on the cited defendants.

Defendants appeal asserting (1) that their conduct was not contumacious within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 401 (1), 3 and (2) that the summary procedure was inappropriate. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

We start with the proposition recently stated by Mr. Justice Black in Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 343 , 90 S.Ct. 1057 , 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970), that “it is essential to the proper administration of criminal justice that dignity, order and decorum be the hallmarks of all court proceedings in our…

(concurring and dissenting):

There is no disagreement concerning the applicable law of contempt. We are agreed that the trial court was empowered to punish for any contempt of its authority to conduct an orderly public trial. It also seems indisputable that contempt is not only evidenced by spontaneous outburst or an isolated instance of misconduct, it may well lie in a subtle, persistent course of action aimed at obstructing an orderly trial. And we, of course, agree that powers of contempt may be exercised summarily only if the judge sees or hears the conduct cited as contumacious. My associates do not suggest that the conduct reflected on this record was not contumacious. Apparently we disagree only on the point of specificity, i. e., whether the citations are sufficiently specific to provide a factual basis for “informed appellate review.” Tauber v. Gorden, 350 F.2d 843, 845 (3rd Cir. 1970).

The first citation is predicated upon a course of conduct from the commencement of the trial to a declaration of mistrial. The Thursday morning disturbance in the corridor, as the judge was returning from the defendants’ conference room, did occur in his actual presence. But the judge…

451 F.2d 372 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Charles Clark MARSHALL, III, et al., Appellants. No. 26889. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Nov. 18, 1971. Michael E. Tigar (argued), San Francisco, Cal., Dennis J. Roberts, of Kennedy & Rhine, San Francisco, Cal., Carl Maxey, Spokane, Wash., Jeffrey Steinborn, Lee A. Holley, Seattle, Wash., for appellants. Charles W. Billinghurst, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Stan Pitkin, U. S. Atty., Michael P. Lerner, Seattle, Wash., for appellee. Before MURRAH, * KOELSCH and BROWNING, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 The defendants were indicted under 18 U.S.C. Secs. 2101 , 1361 and 371, for alleged depredation of federal property in Seattle, Washington. Their trial commenced in the Western District of Washington on November 23, 1970, and continued until December 10, 1970, when the court declared a mistrial and summarily cited six of the seven defendants for criminal contempt. 2 The trial judge issued the first certificate of contempt in open court on December 14, 1970. During that session disruptions occurred which gave rise to the issuance of a second contempt certificate. 1 Each of the certificates imposed a six-month…