Opinion ID: 2295861
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Allegedly Improper Denial of Defense Requests for Bench Conferences

Text: Appellants allege that on 14 occasions during pretrial and trial proceedings, the court denied bench conferences without justification. This contention is also overstated. Three instances occurred during voir dire of individual jurors, [59] where the trial court had established clear procedures: counsel were to note the names of jurors and would have an opportunity, at the end of every voir dire session, to move to strike particular persons. As to the trial, in two instances no bench conference was requested. [60] In another, the court denied the request but called a recess immediately in order to hear counsel outside the presence of the jury altogether. [61] In another, the objection and request for a conference were irrelevant to the immediate issue. [62] The only significant allegation concerns the cross-examination of an eyewitness, Marion Barry. [63] The court sustained a government objection to a question by counsel for Muzikir and told counsel that he was arguing with the witness. Counsel replied, I wouldn't argue with this witness, Your Honor. The court then said, It doesn't call for any commentary, and counsel answered that he did not mean to be disrespectful. The court sent the jury and the witness out, called Muzikir's counsel to the bench, and held him in contempt for continually arguing with the court. The court then assured him that the contempt order would be sealed and deferred until the end of trial (as the court had treated an earlier contempt order directed at counsel for Khaalis). After a brief recess, the court recalled Barry to the stand; Muzikir's counsel asked permission to approach the bench again. The court replied that he would afford counsel time at the end of the day; counsel protested; and the court sent the jury and the witness out for a second time. The court instructed counsel, Not one word out of you and held him in contempt again. The court added that this second order would be sealed until the end of trial, and that counsel would have time at the end of the day to argue his point. The court concluded by saying that counsel could resume his seat or ask questions, but if he otherwise said one word the court would hold him in contempt. The jury returned and counsel for Muzikir stated: In view of what has happened, Your Honor, I have no further questions. The court ordered the jury and the witness out for a third time, citing counsel once again for contempt for prefacing no further questions with an absolutely contemptuous remark. Once the jury and the witness had returned, counsel for Rahim asked to approach the bench; the court refused and told him to put any motion in writing. Counsel for A1 Qawee then joined in the request: I say that my professional responsibility requires me to ask to approach at this time, not at a later time. The court refused, asking him to save it for the end of the day, whereupon counsel for still another of the appellants, Nuh, proceeded to cross-examine. As an abstract proposition, the court arguably should have permitted counsel for Rahim and A1 Qawee to approach the bench when they stressed that they had serious questions of professional responsibility. On the other hand, the court had indicated earlier that it would be available at the end of the day for bench conferences, as well as for motions and objections in writing. The record reflects no defense motion or objection following this incident. The court had authority to keep disruption in front of the jury at a minimum by admonishing counsel and taking other means reasonably necessary to maintain the dignity of the court and expedite the proceedings. Rosenberg, supra at 490-91. In the context elaborated above, we find no abuse of discretion.