Title: STATE EX REL ANGEL v WOODAHL

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 1 3 5 0 9 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1 9 7 6 T h e State of M o n t a n a on t h e R e l a t i o n of CHARLES F. ANGEL, R e l a t o r , VS. ROBERT L . WOODAHL, R e s p o n d e n t . ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For R e l a t o r : C h a r l e s F. A n g e l argued, B o z e m a n , M o n t a n a For R e s p o n d e n t : H o n . R o b e r t L . W o o d a h l appeared, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , M o n t a n a R o b e r t A. Poore argued, B u t t e , M o n t a n a J a m e s H. M o r r o w argued and E d m u n d P. Sedivy argued, B o z e m a n , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d : O c t o b e r 8 , 1 9 7 6 ( i - .,,i i ' , I ) f \: .." . , 8, " i , ! - 3 Filed: erk PER CURIAM: This i s an o r i g i n a l proceeding a g a i n s t t h e Attorney General of Montana f o r contempt of c o u r t by reason of h i s a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n of an order of t h i s Court p r o h i b i t i n g " * * * a l l public out-of-court statements t h a t may conceivably influence public opinion f o r o r a g a i n s t any person o r i s s u e * * *" i n pending criminal prosecutions involving workmen's compensation matters. The background of t h e present proceeding i n d i c a t e s t h a t f o r some time p r i o r t o June 11, 1976, many charges and counter- charges by t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s s p e c i a l prosecutors on t h e one hand and various defense a t t o r n e y s on t h e o t h e r r e l a t i n g t o pending criminal prosecutions involving workmen's compensation m a t t e r s were being widely disseminated throughout Montana by means of out-of-court statements t o t h e detriment of f a i r and j u s t l e g a l proceedings t h e r e i n and t h a t such a c t i o n s were r a p i d l y approaching a c r i s i s . O n June 11, 1976, t h e a t t o r n e y general c a l l e d a p r e s s conference i n which he charged t h r e e named d i s t r i c t judges i n pending cases with voluntary a c t i o n s r e s u l t i n g i n " s u b s t a n t i a l delays" i n bringing t h e defendants t o t r i a l and t h a t t h e workmen's compensation i n v e s t i g a t i o n and prosecution " i s one of t h e sad chapters i n Montana h i s t o r y and, i f not turned around, is going t o be a sad chapter i n t h e h i s t o r y of t h e judiciary" because of d i l a t o r y a c t i o n s by lawyers f o r t h e defendants and t h e l a c k of firmness by many of t h e judges. A t t h i s p r e s s conference one of t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s s p e c i a l prosecutors announced t h a t he was resigning because of " s u b s t a n t i a l delays" r e s u l t i n g i n h i s prosecuting only one case i n 1 0 months and charging t h e r e was almost "an incestuous r e l a t i o n s h i p " between a small number of judges and some lawyers. A t s a i d p r e s s conference t h e a t t o r n e y general c a l l e d upon t h i s Court " t o take hold of t h e matter" by c a l l i n g i n t h e judges, defense lawyers and prosecutors and making it c l e a r t o them " t h a t they should g e t on with t h e business of t h e day which i s t o g e t t h e s e cases t o t r i a l . " That i n response t o t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s complaints and request and i n view of t h e r a p i d l y d e t e r i o r a t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e a t t o r n e y general and h i s prosecutors on one s i d e , defendants and defense counsel on another s i d e , with a number of t r i a l judges i n t h e middle, t h i s Court c a l l e d a conference of prosecutors, defense counsel, and presiding judges by its order of June 1 4 , 1976, and provided, among o t h e r things: "That i n order t o prevent f u r t h e r i n j u r y t o t h e r i g h t s of t h e p u b l i c , t h e s t a t e , t h e defendants and t h e judiciary pending t h e conference herein provided, a l l counsel, t h e i r s t a f f s , c l e r k s , stenographers and a t t a c h e s a r e ordered and d i r e c t - ed t o r e f r a i n d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y from p u b l i c comment i n any way r e l a t i n g t o t h e l i t i g a t i o n heretofore described." and "Any v i o l a t i o n of t h i s order s h a l l s u b j e c t t h e offender t o proceedings f o r contempt of c o u r t . " The conference was held i n t h e courtroom of t h i s Court on June 2 1 , 1976. The a t t o r n e y general and members of h i s s t a f f were present and p a r t i c i p a t e d . A t s a i d conference, among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h i s Court, through t h e Chief J u s t i c e , e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d : "Finally, t h e o b j e c t i v e s t h a t we a r e prepared t o i n s i s t upon can be s t a t e d i n t h e following charge t o each of you. F i r s t , accord t h i s l i t i g a t i o n i t s r i g h t f u l paramount p r i o r i t y . Second, bring t h e s e c a s e s t o t r i a l with a l l d e l i b e r a t e speed. Third, cease and d e s i s t from a l l p u b l i c out-of-court statements t h a t may conceivably influence public opinion f o r o r a g a i n s t any person o r i s s u e r e l a t - ing t o t h i s pending l i t i g a t i o n . Fourth, each of you w i l l be held responsible f o r your own conduct i n accomplishing t h e s e o b j e c t i v e s . * * *" O n August 1 2 , 1976, a t a meeting of t h e Kiwanis Club i n Sidney, Montana, t h e a t t o r n e y general, a candidate f o r governor, spoke f o r approximately 10 minutes a t which t i m e he made no remarks concerning t h e workmen's compensation criminal prose- cutions. That t h e r e a f t e r c e r t a i n questions from t h e audience were d i r e c t e d t o him regarding t h e workmen's compensation l i t i g a t i o n . That t h e a t t o r n e y general asked i f t h e r e w e r e any members of t h e p r e s s present and then proceeded t o p u b l i c l y blame t h r e e o t h e r d i s t r i c t judges from those named a t h i s p r e s s conference of June 1 1 f o r some of t h e prosecution's d i f f i c u l t i e s ; t h a t a l l t h r e e judges w e r e appointed by former Governor F o r r e s t Anderson; implied t h a t t h e s e judges were looking o u t f o r t h e i n t e r e s t s of t h e former democratic governor and h i s f r i e n d s ; and went on t o t e l l how he was t r y i n g t o g e t t h e c a s e s t r i e d quickly but t h e t h r e e judges and t h e lawyers representing t h e defendants had been f i l i n g numerous unwarranted motions and dragging t h e i r f e e t t o s t a l l t h e t r i a l s p a s t e l e c t i o n t i m e . The a t t o r n e y general i n d i c a t e d t h a t he r e a l i z e d he was making t h e t y p e of comments t h a t a r e frowned upon by t h e Supreme Court and mentioned t h i s C o u r t ' s order a g a i n s t public comment on t h e cases. After t h i s matter came t o t h e a t t e n t i o n of t h i s Court, we issued an order and c i t a t i o n t o t h e a t t o r n e y general t o appear and show cause why contempt proceedings should not be i n s t i t u t e d a g a i n s t him. The a t t o r n e y general appeared, admitted t h e sub- s t a n c e of events and statements giving r i s e t o our o r d e r and c i t a t i o n , b u t denied t h a t they were intended t o o r d i d c o n s t i t u t e contempt. Following hearing, t h i s Court by order of September 7, 1976, d i r e c t e d t h a t contempt proceedings be i n s t i t u t e d a g a i n s t t h e a t t o r n e y general and designated a t t o r n e y Charles F. Angel t o i n s t i t u t e such proceedings. O n September 2 8 , 1976, contempt proceedings w e r e i n s t i - t u t e d by t h e f i l i n g of an a f f i d a v i t f o r contempt by M r . Angel. The a t t o r n e y general responded on October 7, by f i l i n g a motion t o quash and dismiss t h e proceeding and an answer t o t h e a f f i d a v i t f o r contempt. B r i e f s were f i l e d , testimony was taken, e x h i b i t s were o f f e r e d i n evidence, o r a l argument was had and t h e matter w a s submitted f o r decision on October 1 4 , 1976. The a t t o r n e y general a t t a c k s t h e contempt proceeding on t h e s e p r i n c i p a l grounds: (1) That t h e r e was no c o u r t order i n e f f e c t a t t h e time he made h i s statements a t t h e Sidney Kiwanis meeting; ( 2 ) i f a c o u r t order d i d e x i s t , it was uncon- s t i t u t i o n a l l y vague, i n d e f i n i t e , and ambiguous; (3) t h a t t h e c o u r t order he i s accused of v i o l a t i n g i s i n i t s e l f a v i o l a t i o n of t h e f r e e speech, due process, equal p r o t e c t i o n and separation of powers provisions of t h e f e d e r a l and state c o n s t i t u t i o n s . To reach t h e m e r i t s of t h i s case, we make t h e following preliminary r u l i n g s heretofore taken under advisement: (1) Rela- t o r ' s e x h i b i t A ( t h e newspaper a r t i c l e of June 11, 1976, i n t h e Independent Record) is admitted i n evidence; ( 2 ) respondent's e x h i b i t s B through F (newspaper a r t i c l e s ) a r e admitted i n evidence; ( 3 ) a l l motions t o quash o r dismiss t h i s proceeding a r e denied. W e make t h e following findings of u l t i m a t e f a c t : (1) This C o u r t ' s o r d e r s of June 1 4 and June 2 1 and t h e conference of June 2 1 were made and held on t h e b a s i s of complaints and a t t h e s p e c i a l i n s t a n c e and public request of t h e a t t o r n e y general. ( 2 ) That a t no t i m e has t h e a t t o r n e y general applied t o t h i s Court f o r r e l i e f from t h e orders of June 1 4 and June 2 1 on any grounds. (3) That t h e a t t o r n e y general w i l l f u l l y , knowingly and d e l i b e r a t e l y v i o l a t e d t h e order of t h i s Court of June 21 d i r e c t - ing him, among o t h e r s t o "cease and d e s i s t from a l l public out-of- c o u r t statements t h a t may conceivably influence public opinion f o r o r a g a i n s t any person o r i s s u e r e l a t i n g t o t h i s pending liti- gation" by reason of h i s statements and remarks a t t h e Kiwanis meeting of August 12 in Sidney, Montana. (4) That the circumstances existing on June 14 and June 21 presented a clear and present danger to the proper function- ing of the judicial processes of this state and the rights of its citizens, the defendants, and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases involving workmen's compensation matters, and that remedial action was necessary and required of this Court. (5) That the orders of this Court of June 14 and June 21 were made in response thereto. We conclude as a matter of law: (1) That the orders of this Court on June 14 and June 21 were within its jurisdiction and authority pursuant to Art. VII, Section 2 of the 1972 Montana Constitution and were in all respects valid and legal; (2) That the due process, equal protection, separation of powers and freedom of speech provisions of the state and fed- eral constitutions were not violated by the order of this Court of June 14 and June 21, 1976, under the unique and compelling circumstances of this case. (3) That the remedy for any alleged prejudice to the attorney general's political campaign lies in applying to this Court for relief from its order of June 21, which remedy has never been sought. (4) That the attorney general is guilty of contempt of court pursuant to section 93-9801(5), R.C.M. 1947, by reason of his willful, knowing and deliberate violation of this Court's order of June 21 commanding him, among others, to cease and desist from all public out-of-court statements that may conceiv- ably influence public opinion for or against any person or issue involved in pending criminal prosecutions involving workmen's compensation matters. On t h e b a s i s of t h e foregoing f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law, w e e n t e r judgment a s follows: (1) The a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l i s hereby adjudged g u i l t y of contempt o f c o u r t . (2) That a f i n e of $250 is a s s e s s e d a s a p e n a l t y . ( 3 ) That t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l may purge himself o f con- tempt of c o u r t by agreeing i n open c o u r t w i t h i n 10 days of t h e d a t e hereof t h a t i n t h e f u t u r e he w i l l a b i d e by t h e o r d e r of t h i s Court o f June 21 u n t i l t h e same i s a l t e r e d , amended o r revoked by proper l e g a l proceedings and a c c o ~ d i n g fo law. , * / Chief J u s t i c e M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s i s a b s e n t a t t h e t i m e of t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h i s Opinion and has taken no p a r t t h e r e i n . H e w i l l have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o express h i s views l a t e r .