Opinion ID: 2295861
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Alleged Judicial Abuse in Warnings and Orders of Contempt

Text: At several points during the trial, the court gave warnings and eventually held counsel for Khaalis, Rahim, and Muzikir in contempt of court. [64] All warnings were given out of the presence of the jury, [65] and all contempt orders were deferred until the end of trial. [66] The first warning to counsel for Khaalis occurred at a motions hearing, when counsel began to argue with the court and refused to take his seat. [67] The press apparently overheard the warning because the court inadvertently had failed to turn off the microphone (for which the court later apologized). There was no prejudice to appellants here, for the jury was not in the courtroom. [68] The second incident occurred during the second day of trial when counsel for Khaalis asked a question of a witness ruled improper by the court. When the court suggested that counsel not turn his back on the court, counsel began to argue. The court immediately sent the jury out and gave a general warning to all counsel about the importance of maintaining calm and dignity throughout the proceedings, and what specific actions would constitute contempt. [69] There was no judicial misconduct.