Opinion ID: 2263762
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Early Stages of Trial in Federal District Court

Text: During the first two days of trial, Judge Blackburn admonished Respondent and the City Attorneys on occasion for not following the protocol outlined in his pre-trial order. Respondent responded cordially and professionally to these early admonitions, which generally related to Respondent's habit of asking questions before the judge had an opportunity to rule on the pending objections. In this context, Judge Blackburn admonished both parties by stating: We are done. Again the trial practice orderand counsel read it, both of you please. I have had you ask me questions over the last couple of days about the contents of that order that are absolutely plain, and one of the things that are plain is the protocol for marshalling objections, Mr. Brennan, and that's objection, response, reply, and then the ruling, and that's where we are. The Hearing Board finds Respondent's initial breaches of the Court's protocol insufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he intended to disrupt the tribunal or knowingly engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. However, Respondent was then on notice Judge Blackburn would not tolerate further breaches of courtroom protocol. Nevertheless, knowing that Judge Blackburn repeatedly admonished him for not following the Court's protocol, Respondent continued to do so and openly challenged the admonitions. When Judge Blackburn sua sponte admonished Respondent for reading from a document not yet admitted into evidence, Respondent, in the presence of the jury, protested the admonition stating: I wonder if the jury should be hearing this kind of remonstration all the time which I think has a tendency to prejudice them against me. Because you are in essence passing judgment upon my competence as an attorney in their presence. Judge Blackburn then removed the jury and stated to Respondent: Mr. Brennan, I find those final remarks deliberately made in the presence of the jury to be highly disrespectful of the court, in violation of Rule 103(c), and an effort on your part, apparently, to pad the record with injected prejudice. The only way the Court can stop inappropriate behavior when it sees it is to do so on the record, and I did so, and that's a fortiori, sir, when this is not the first or second but the multiple time in which you insist in disregarding the admonishment of this Court, which is proper and appropriate, not to suggest to the jury evidence which has not yet been admitted. And I will expect you to conform your conduct accordingly. [9] Respondent replied to the Court's admonition by arguing the City shape-shift[ed] into a new version of the facts every time the one that it formerly adopted is shot down. Judge Blackburn then reprimanded the parties for not preparing stipulations in a timely fashion and exhorted them to stipulate to exhibits upon which there was no controversy. [10] The City then advised the Court that they had tried to confer with Respondent on the exhibits before the trial commenced but Respondent had refused to do so. Respondent responded, That's absolute nonsense. Judge Blackburn firmly stated to both Respondent and the City, That's enough. [11] The Hearing Board finds at this point in the trial Respondent knew or should have known Judge Blackburn was understandably growing impatient with his failure to abide by the Court's rules of protocol and interfering with a properly conducted trial. Nevertheless, Respondent continued to disregard Judge Blackburn's orders. Up to this point Judge Blackburn was understandably troubled Respondent continued to speechify objections, interrupt the Court, and make editorial comments about the evidence. [12] The Hearing Board finds after Judge Blackburn issued multiple warnings to stop disobeying the Court's direct orders, Respondent, at this point, knowingly and intentionally failed to abide by the Court's continued admonitions.