Summary
This Fifth Circuit opinion addresses whether a federal judge may summarily hold an attorney in criminal contempt for failing to appear at a scheduled pretrial conference and trial. The court held that while a lawyer's absence alone does not constitute contempt committed in the court's presence, the defendant received actual notice and suffered no prejudice from the lack of formal written notice required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(b). Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's contempt judgment and fine.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a lawyer's failure to appear for trial constitutes contempt committed in the presence of the court requiring summary contempt under Rule 42(a)
- Whether the district court complied with the notice requirements of Rule 42(b)
Holdings
- A lawyer's failure to attend court is not contempt committed in the presence of the court; therefore summary contempt under Rule 42(a) is unavailable and the contempt must be prosecuted pursuant to Rule 42(b) with proper notice.
- The district court provided adequate notice in fact, but the statutory notice requirements of Rule 42(b) were not satisfied; nevertheless, because Washington suffered no prejudice, the contempt judgment was affirmed.
Key quotations
“The failure of a lawyer to appear for a trial is not a contempt committed in the presence of the court. Therefore it may be prosecuted only on notice, as prescribed by Fed.R.Cr.P. 42(b), stating the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged.” (at 1)
“Rule 42(b) explicitly requires: "The notice shall state the time and place of hearing, allowing a reasonable time for the preparation of the defense, and shall state the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged and describe it as such."” (at 8)
Factual background
Senator Craig Washington, counsel for defendant Miki Eze Onu, failed to appear at a pre‑trial conference on April 15 and at the trial on April 18, 1983, despite having been notified of the dates. He offered no satisfactory explanation, and the court ordered him held in contempt for his failure to appear.
Procedural history
The district court held Craig Washington in criminal contempt for failing to appear at trial and sentenced him to a fine equal to the cost of summoning the jury. Washington appealed, arguing that his absence was not contempt committed in the presence of the court and that Rule 42(b) notice requirements were not satisfied.