No. 13509 INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 197 6

The State

### of Montana 

### on the Relationof CHARLES F. ANGEL, Relator,
VS. ROBERT L. WOODAHL, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING:

Counsel 

### of Record:
For Relator: CharlesF. Angel argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl 

### appeared, Attorney General, Helena, Montana RobertA. 

### Poore argued, Butte, Montana James H. Morrow 

### argued and Edmund P. Sedivy 

### argued, Bozeman, Montana

Submitted: October 8, 1976

( i - .,,i i ',I) f\: .."

. , 8, "i , ! -3 Filed:

erkPER CURIAM: This 

### isan original proceeding against the Attorney General of Montana for contempt of court by reason of his alleged violation of an order of this Court prohibiting 

### " 

## * * * allpublic out-of-court statements that may conceivably influence public opinion for or against any person or issue

## * 

## * *" in pending criminal prosecutions involving workmen's compensation 

### matters.The background of the present proceeding indicates that for some time prior toJune 11, 1976, many charges and countercharges by the attorney general's specialprosecutors on the
one hand and various defense attorneys on the other relating to pending criminal prosecutions involving workmen's compensation matters were being widely disseminated throughout Montana by
means of out-of-court statements tothe detriment of fair and just legal proceedings therein and that such actions were rapidly approaching 

### a crisis. On June 11, 1976, the attorneygeneral called a press conference inwhich he charged three named districtjudges in pending cases with voluntary actions resulting in "substantial delays" inbringing the defendants totrial and that the workmen's compensation investigation and prosecution "isone of the sad chapters inMontana history and, if not turned around, 

### is going tobe a sad chapter inthe history of the judiciary" because of dilatory actionsby lawyers for the defendants and the lack of firmness by many of thejudges. Atthispress conference one of the attorney general's special prosecutors announced that he
was resigning because of "substantial delays" resulting inhis prosecuting only one case in 10months and charging there was almost "an incestuous relationship" between a small number of judges and some lawyers. At said press conference the attorney general called uponthis Court "to take hold of thematter" by calling in the judges, defense lawyers and prosecutors and making it clear tothem "that they should get on with the business of the day which is to get these cases to trial." That inresponse tothe attorney general's complaints and request and inview of the rapidly deterioratingrelationship between the attorney general and his prosecutors on one side, defendants and defense counsel on another side, with a number of trialjudges inthemiddle, thisCourt called a conference of prosecutors, defense counsel, and presiding judges by 

### its order of June 14, 1976, and provided, among other things: "That inorder toprevent further injury tothe rights of the public, the state, the defendants and thejudiciary pending the conference herein provided, allcounsel, their staffs, clerks, stenographers and attaches areordered and directed torefrain directly or indirectly from public comment inany way relating to the litigation heretofore described." and "Any violation of this order shall subject the offender toproceedings for contempt of court." The conference was held in the courtroom of this Court on June 21, 1976. The attorney general and members of his staff were present and participated. At said conference, among other things, this Court, through the Chief Justice, explicitly stated: "Finally, the objectives that we areprepared to insist upon can be stated in the following charge to each of you. First, accord this litigation 

### its rightful paramount priority. Second, bring these cases to trialwith alldeliberate speed. Third, cease and desist from allpublic out-of-court statements thatmay conceivably influence public opinion for or against any person or issuerelating tothispending litigation. Fourth, each of you willbe held responsible for your own conduct in accomplishing these objectives. 

## * * *" On August 12, 1976, ata meeting of the Kiwanis Club in Sidney, Montana, the attorney general, a candidate for governor, spoke for approximately 10minutes atwhich 

### timehe made noremarks concerning the workmen's compensation criminal prosecutions. That thereafter certain questions from the audience
were directed tohim regarding the workmen's compensation litigation. That the attorney general asked if there

### wereany members of thepress present and then proceeded topublicly blame three other districtjudges from those named athis press conference of June 

### 11 for some of the prosecution's difficulties; that allthreejudges 

### were appointed by former Governor Forrest Anderson; implied that these judges were looking out for the interests of the former democratic governor and his friends; and went on to

### tell how he was trying toget the cases tried quickly but the three judges and the lawyers representing the defendants had been filingnumerous unwarranted motions and dragging their feetto stallthe trials past election 

### time. The attorney general indicated that he realized he was making the type of comments that are frowned upon by the Supreme Court and mentioned thisCourt's order against public comment on the 

### cases. After thismatter came tothe attention of this Court,
we issued an order and citationtothe attorney general toappear and show cause why contempt proceedings should not be instituted against him. The attorney general appeared, admitted the substanceof events and statements giving rise toour order and citation, but denied that they 

### were intended toor did constitute contempt. Following hearing, this Court by order of September 7, 1976, directed that contempt proceedings be instituted against the attorney general and designated attorney Charles F. Angel to institute such proceedings. On September 28, 1976, contempt proceedings 

### were instituted by the filingof an affidavit for contempt by Mr. Angel. The attorney general responded on October 7, by filing a motion toquash and dismiss the proceeding and an answer tothe affidavitfor contempt. Briefs were filed, testimony was taken, exhibits
were offered in evidence, oral argument was had and thematter


### was submitted for decision on October 

### 14, 1976. The attorney general attacks the contempt proceeding
on these principal grounds: 

### (1)That there was no court order in effect atthe time he made his statements atthe Sidney Kiwanis meeting; (2) if a court order did exist, 

### it was unconstitutionallyvague, indefinite, and ambiguous; (3) that the court order he 

### is accused of violating 

### is in itself a violation of the free speech, due process, equal protection and separation of powers provisions of the federal and 

### state constitutions. To reach the

### meritsof this case, we make the following preliminary rulings heretofore taken under advisement: (1)Relator's exhibit A (thenewspaper articleof June 11, 1976, in the Independent Record) 

### is admitted in evidence; (2) respondent's exhibits B through F (newspaper articles) areadmitted in evidence; (3) allmotions toquash or dismiss thisproceeding aredenied. Wemake the following findings of ultimate fact:

(1)This Court's orders of June 

### 14 and June 

### 21and the conference of June 21

### were made and held on the basis of complaints and atthe special instance and public request of the attorney general.(2) That atno 

### timehas the attorney general applied to this Court for relief from the orders of June 14and June 21on any grounds. (3)That the attorney general willfully, knowingly and deliberatelyviolated the order of this Court of June 21 directing him, among others to "cease and desist from allpublic out-ofcourt statements thatmay conceivably influence public opinion for or against any person or issue relating to thispending litigation" by reason of his statements and remarks atthe 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 functioning 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 compensationmatters, 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 1972Montana 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 federal constitutionswere 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 conceivably influence public opinion for or against any person or issue involved in pending criminal prosecutions involving workmen's compensationmatters.On thebasis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, 

### we enter judgment asfollows: 

### (1)The attorney general is hereby adjudged guilty of contempt of court. (2) That a fine of $250 is assessed as a penalty. (3) That the attorney general may purge himself of contempt of court by agreeing inopen court within 10 days of the date hereof that inthe future he willabide by the order of this Court of June 21 until the same 

### is altered, amended or revoked by proper legal proceedings and acco~ding fo law.

,*/ Chief Justice

Mr. JusticeWesley Castles is absent atthe 

### timeof the preparation of this Opinion and has taken no part therein. He

### willhave the opportunity toexpress hisviews later.