Summary
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals considers an original habeas corpus petition challenging an attorney's direct-contempt conviction arising from his conduct during jury selection in a felony theft trial. The court holds that counsel's failure to conduct voir dire or strike prospective jurors, undertaken as a trial strategy and not in violation of a court order, did not constitute contempt. The court grants the requested habeas relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether an attorney may be held in contempt for declining to question a jury panel or exercise peremptory challenges as a matter of trial strategy when no court order required those actions.
- Whether the evidence established that Jacobs's conduct obstructed or tended to obstruct the proper administration of justice or violated a court order.
- Whether the contempt judgment and punishment were subject to relief in an original habeas corpus proceeding.
Holdings
- Jacobs could not be held in contempt for failing to question the jury panel or strike the jury list because no law required him to do so and no court order directing those actions was violated.
- The evidence did not establish contempt because Jacobs's conduct did not hinder the forward progress of the trial or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice.
- The court granted the requested habeas corpus relief because the contempt judgment and punishment were void for lack of evidentiary support and legal basis.
Key quotations
“There was no law which made it mandatory he do so, and there was no court order violated.” (664 S.W.2d at 364)
“While the conduct of the applicant as an attorney might not be altogether commendable, and while it might have been irritating to the trial judge, it did not hinder the forward progress of the trial or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice.” (664 S.W.2d at 364)
“The relief prayed for is granted.” (664 S.W.2d at 364)
Factual background
Jacobs represented Hipolito Perez in a felony theft trial, but sought a continuance because Perez primarily spoke Spanish and no interpreter was available. After the continuance was denied, Jacobs did not question the jury panel or exercise peremptory strikes, continuing to object to the lack of an interpreter. The trial judge declared a mistrial, removed Jacobs as counsel, and held him in direct contempt for failing to participate in voir dire, failing to strike the jury list, refusing to proceed to trial, and allegedly obstructing the court's administration of justice.
Procedural history
The district court held Jacobs in direct contempt during the trial of Hipolito Perez and assessed thirty days in jail and a $500 fine. Under Article 1911a(2)(c), V.A.C.S., a different judge independently determined Jacobs's guilt and reduced the punishment to fifteen days in jail and a $300 fine. Jacobs then invoked the original habeas corpus jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals.