In Re Charles R. B. Kirk. United States of America v. Charles R. B. Kirk

Charles Kirk, a Deputy Attorney General of California, appeals from two convictions for criminal contempt under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (d) (now at 28 U.S.C. § 636 (e) and 18 U.S.C. § 401 , respectively). We reverse both convictions.

I. The Facts.

Because we reverse for lack of evidence, we state the facts in detail.

In 1976 one Elmer “Gerónimo” Pratt filed a civil rights action in the district court against the California Department of Corrections. Pratt v. Rees, et al., D.C. No. C-76-1069 (N.D.Cal.). Pratt, an inmate of San Quentin, charged that he had been placed in special security housing, known as the “hole,” because of his political beliefs and associations. The court referred all discovery matters in Pratt v. Rees to Magistrate Woelflen in December, 1978.

In mid-January, 1979, Pratt subpoenaed all documents in the possession of the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and various of its branches — all nonparties to the litigation — relating to Pratt’s association with the Black Panther Party between August 1,1968 and April 1,1972. Kirk was assigned to represent the DOJ and filed responses to the subpoena refusing to produce any of the documents “on the ground that any of the…

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. The critical inquiry is whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when “all of the evidence ” is considered in the light most favorable to upholding the conviction. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); United States v. Kipp, 624 F.2d 84, 84 (9th Cir. 1980). “[TJhis inquiry does not require a reviewing court to ‘ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318-19 , 99 S.Ct. at 2789 , quoting Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276, 282 , 87 S.Ct. 483, 486 , 17 L.Ed.2d 362 (1966). Rather, it is for the trier of fact “fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Id.

The majority acknowledges this standard, yet, in my view, draws reasonable inferences in favor of Kirk. While the evidence is consistent with Kirk’s theory, it is also consistent with the Government’s theory. A trier of fact reasonably could conclude that the DOJ and Kirk delayed discovery and formulated statements as they did…

641 F.2d 684 In re Charles R. B. KIRK. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles R. B. KIRK, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 79-1733, 79-1820. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 7, 1980. Decided March 9, 1981. Marcus S. Topel, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Eric Swensen, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before DUNIWAY, TANG and CANBY, Circuit Judges. DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge: 1 Charles Kirk, a Deputy Attorney General of California, appeals from two convictions for criminal contempt under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (d) (now at 28 U.S.C. § 636 (e) and 18 U.S.C. § 401 , respectively). We reverse both convictions. 2 I. The Facts. 3 Because we reverse for lack of evidence, we state the facts in detail. 4 In 1976 one Elmer "Geronimo" Pratt filed a civil rights action in the district court against the California Department of Corrections. Pratt v. Rees, et al., D.C. No. C-76-1069 (N.D.Cal.). Pratt, an inmate of San Quentin, charged that he had been placed in special security housing, known as the "hole,"…