Login | March 28, 2024

Appeals court says lower court wrong in charging lawyer with contempt

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News

Published: July 25, 2014

In the 1st District Court of Appeals, a panel of judges recently ruled that the Hamilton County Municipal Court improperly imposed an order of contempt on an attorney.

The case arose from a DUI prosecution in which Steven Adams represented the defendant, Amanda Pate.

At a motion-to-suppress hearing, Adams, Melanie Reising, a prosecutor for the city of Cincinnati, and the trial court engaged in a discussion regarding Pate’s driving privileges.

Transcripts indicate that the prosecutor wanted to suspend Pate’s license but Adams argued that the case had been pending for a year and to inhibit Pate’s driving privileges at that point would have been “punitive and vindictive.”

“Now we’re over a year later or so and now (Reising) wanting to prosecute her?” Adams asked the court. “I mean, even if she was convicted of a DUI, she most likely wouldn’t get more than six months here anyway. So for the court to impose a punishment at this point in time, and she’s got a valid license and not let her (go to) work, travel to and from the courthouse, is being vindictive and not fair.”

The trial court maintained that a license suspension would be in the public interest but Adams maintained that, to impose a punishment for a DUI conviction that did not involve an accident over a year after the fact would not serve the public interest.

The trial court stated, “First of all, we’ll do like we did in government, that we don’t attack the motives of either party.”

“No, no,” Adams replied, “Thomas Jefferson said, government is evil. He did say that. Government is evil.”

“All right, well we don’t attack the motives of each other,” the trial court replied.

Pate’s driving privileges were not suspended but Reising and Adams continued to argue with each other, even memorializing on the record that Reising would not give Adams “any favors, any plea bargains ever again.”

At a meeting with Reising and Adams, the trial court admonished Adams, stating that he went “pretty far afield in terms of (his) behavior towards the city.”

The judge then invited Adams to apologize.

Adams denied the allegations, claiming there was no evidence in the transcript that he overreacted and stated that the trial court never told him on the record that he was acting improperly.

The trial court decided to hold a conduct hearing, to which Adams objected, and found him in direct contempt.

“I was actually shocked by your behavior, by how loud and aggressive you were,” the trial court stated. “I believe there was a lack of civility on your part, and I didn’t understand it. I’ve reviewed the transcript — one of the things the transcript can’t capture ... (is) the tone, aggressiveness, attitude.”

Adams was ordered to serve 30 days in jail and pay a $250 fine with the option to “purge” the contempt by issuing an apology to the court and to Reising within one month.

The trial court stayed the sentence pending appeal and Adams filed a brief with the 1st District, declaring that the trial court abused its discretion in finding him in contempt.

“Two conditions must be met before a court may summarily punish a person for contempt,” the appellate panel stated in its per curiam decision.

First, a trial court must have “personal knowledge of the disruptive conduct acquired by his own observation of the contemptuous conduct.”

Additionally, “the conduct must pose an open threat to the orderly procedure of the court and such a flagrant defiance of the person and presence of the judge before the public that, if not instantly suppressed and punished, demoralization of the court’s authority will follow.”

Adams contended his conduct did not constitute behavior that obstructed justice and required immediate punishment.

“In this case, Adams did not display exemplary conduct befitting an officer of the court,” the court of appeals held. “However, Adams’ conduct did not constitute and immediate threat to the administration of justice.”

Because the record did not prove that Adams’ conduct was contemptuous beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellate panel concluded that the Hamilton County court abused its discretion and it vacated the order of contempt.

Presiding Judge Lee Hildebrandt and judges Patrick Dinkelacker and Patrick Fischer concurred to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Adams, 2014-Ohio-2728.

Copyright © 2014 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved


[Back]