Opinion ID: 1658875
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Fourth Contempt Citation

Text: The fourth contempt citation occurred during relator's closing argument. The argument immediately preceding the contempt citation was as follows: MR. MILKOVICH: ... Well, how many lies do they have to tell you before you realize the whole case is a lie. Did you get mad about this business about the whole case being tried behind closed doors? Who hid the truth in this case and who  MR. LAYTON: we object to that, it is out of line. THE COURT: Mr. Milkovich, your closing argument is improper. MR. MILKOVICH: I want you to THE COURT:  Mr. Milkovich, you will restrain yourself and confine your argument to the jury on the evidence which has been adduced in this trial and before this jury and nothing else. MR. MILKOVICH: Thank you. Perhaps you all can determine for yourselves who was hungry for the truth in this case. MR. LAYTON: Your Honor, we object, that is the same type of statement. THE COURT: The objection is sustained, Mr. Milkovich. You will confine your argument to the evidence which has come forward from this trial and nothing else. MR. MILKOVICH: Maybe we will try this. Who wanted the truth? That's my only question, you all can figure that out, I think it is apparent to everybody in the Courtroom. Who has watched their case disintegrate right in front of their very eyes  MR. LAYTON: Your Honor, we object to this. It is the same thing, it is the third time. He has been warned about this. MR. MILKOVICH: May I please make my closing argument on behalf of this innocent man? THE COURT: Mr. Milkovich, the Court does not want to have to interrupt you again in your argument. You will restrain your tone of voice in your argument, slow down, and, confine your argument to the evidence which came in the case. If you cannot conform to that the Court will go out of the hearing of the jury on this matter. Now, continue your argument. MR. MILKOVICH: Thank you. This is the heroic track of Robert Townsell who only, like I say, got caught lying on every fact in the case. If Johnny Wright did it why did Robert Townsell lie about every fact in the case. Can you figure that out? Where do the lies end and where does the truth begin? Where do the lies end? And if you are wondering, if you have a hard time figuring, well, gee, he lied abut this and he lied about that and he lied about this and he lied about that. Well, can you believe anything he says? Where is that photograph. This is an interestingwe are not able to prove who did it. All we did is prove he didn't do it. We don't know who stabbed Doris Wright because he wasn't there and I wasn't there. But there are a few interesting questions aboutit could have been somebody that was mad that tried to pay her for a trick that didn't get satisfaction. It could have been a drug dealer. The cops clearly testified this is the highest crime rate area, it is on the edge of the Bottoms. There's junkies, drug addicts, everybody down there. Packing knives, a bunch of insanemaybe Townsell had her put away, I don't know. Can you figure this out? Can you figure this out? Where was the blood in this case? Where was the blood in this case? All over Robert Townsell's car. Remember him, he is the honest guy. He is the same one that walked right by the murder knife and told us that he told the police about it and the police come up here and say, I never heard anything about a knife, I didn't know there was one. They talk about witnesses not showing. Where are the cops that investigated this crime? For goodness sakes. Not a single cop that went to the investigating crime to investigate the crime was called to testify. Does that give you a problem? Does that give you a problem that not a single cop that went to the scene came to Court. They were so afraid that the truth was going to come out in this case. That you all were going to find out MR. LAYTON: I object, I object at this time. MR. COWLES: That is a personal comment. MR. LAYTON: That was a personal comment, he must be admonished. THE COURT: Ms. Clerk, mark the time as eighteen minutes till six. Mr. Milkovich, you will step outside. (Whereupon, a conference was had outside the presence of the jury.) THE COURT: State your objection. MR. LAYTON: This is the fourth time he's put in personal comments abut trying to seek the truth implying that we are not. MR. MILKOVICH: I can go into that. MR. LAYTON: He was specifically warned not to personalize. MR. MILKOVICH: I didn't personalize. MR. LAYTON: May I finish, please? THE COURT: Hold it, you will get a chance to respond. MR. LAYTON: Our objections have been sustained three times or two times and he just did it again directly in violation of your order. MR. MILKOVICH: That's not true at all, I didn't make personal attacks. I said the State's case doesn't correspond to the truth. I said you hid the truth. That's notthat is what I am saying, I have got a right to say it, I want to finish. THE COURT: Mr. Milkovich, you can finish your closing argument within the guidelines that this Court sets forth. I told you before we started you would not start ranting and raving and during the closing arguments. You are hollering at the top of your voice, beating on the diagram and you tore it. You are screaming and hollering all over the jury. You back off of that jury. I have told you before, I have stopped you about this personal opinion about the case and this personalizing to the prosecutors about them not being interested in the truth. MR. MILKOVICH: Come on, they are sitting there calling my guy a lier and I am calling their witness a lier. THE COURT: You can argue the evidence in the case, not the prosecutors, nothing more. All of this outside of the record business about your personal opinions has no place MR. MILKOVICH: Okay, I object to my closing. THE COURT: To the argument? MR. MILKOVICH: I object to my argument being disrupted and by the State. Can we finish? THE COURT: You will finish with your tone lower. MR. MILKOVICH: Lower, sure. MR. LAYTON: We want something done, I am sick of this. THE COURT: You will finish your closing argument. MR. MILKOVICH: And then I will go to jail, that's fine. THE COURT: You will finish your closing argument, Mr. Milkovich. I have warned you about this before we started. You are in direct disobeyance to the orders that I gave you about proper conduct. This is highly and extremely improper. MR. MILKOVICH: Would you please hold me in contempt and let me finish. THE COURT: You are appealing to inflame the jury by standing all over them and waiving and ranting and raving and hollering about the State not being interested in the truth. You have got a lot of evidence to argue in this case. If you are putting on a show out there for the other members of your staff you can MR. MILKOVICH: I am going to try to win the case. THE COURT: You are hereby found in contempt of this Court order. Do you have any response? MR. MILKOVICH: I am doing the same thing only I am doing it better. Lets go and finish. THE COURT: The execution of sentence on this contempt is deferred. You will continue to conform with my orders. No more of this, Mr. Milkovich. MR. MILKOVICH: No more closing argument? THE COURT: You can go do your closing argument. I stopped the time and the time will start back when we go back inside. No more of this business of me having to bring you our here in the middle of your argument because you are hollering and ranting and screaming and acting like you don't have any sense. MR. MILKOVICH: Lets go, lets go, lets go. I want to go, I want to get it finished. When argument was resumed before the jury, relator made two more references to prosecutorial motive, whereupon the judge sustained objections and warned relator that his argument would be terminated in the event he failed to confine his comments to the evidence. Several minutes later, relator again strayed from the proper bounds of argument, and the judge limited him to an additional two minutes of summation. At the end of this time, the judge had to instruct relator three times to be seated before he ceased arguing, and even then relator continued (as noted in the record) to make gestures and wave evidence to the jury. As to this conviction, the record clearly supports the judge's finding of contumacious behavior toward the judge which tended to interfere with the business of the court and to impair its dignity. In his per curiam, the judge aptly stated that relator's surly, belligerent and reprehensible conduct was so disdainful that the court had no alternative but to find him in contempt. Relator's behavior far exceeded the limits of zealous advocacy. The argument itself was highly improper, not only because closing argument should be confined to the evidence or lack thereof or inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, but also because relator leveled a vicious attack on the integrity of the prosecutor and the judge which is not in any manner suggested by the record. When referring to the whole case being tried behind closed doors, relator (according to the trial judge's per curiam) pointed to the door of the room where several bench conferences had been held, suggesting that the court held conferences in that room to hide the truth from the jury. See In re Masinter, 355 So.2d 1288 (La.1978). After several warnings, relator blatantly and deliberately continued to employ the identical tactics with virtually the identical remarks, indicating a deliberate disregard for the authority of the court. The trial judge correctly determined that it was necessary to interrupt the closing argument and to conduct a conference outside the presence of the jury. [6] At the conference relator's disorderly conduct worsened, and he clearly displayed his utter disdain and disrespect for the court's authority. Indeed, relator invited the contempt citation, and the judge, after exhibiting admirable restraint and exemplary demeanor, finally issued the citation. The purpose of charging and convicting a person for criminal contempt is to vindicate the public interest by punishment of contemptuous conduct. R. Perkins, Criminal Law 533 (1969); In re Harris, 493 So.2d 1199 (La.1986). The fair and efficient administration of justice requires that respect for the dignity of the courts be maintained and that willful disobedience or deliberate defiance of the court's authority be punished. We conclude that the conviction was supported by the evidence and that the seriousness of the deliberate misconduct clearly justified the sentence of twentyfour hours in jail.