Document: 376 U.S. 575 84 S.Ct. 841 11 L.Ed.2d 921 Sidney J. UNGAR, Appellant,v.Hon. Joseph A. SARAFITE, Judge, etc. No. 167. Argued Feb. 24, 1964. Decided March 30, Rehearing Denied May 4, See 377 925, 1218. Osmond K. Fraenkel and Emanuel Redfield, New York City, for appellant. H. Richard Uviller, appellee. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The appellant, Ungar, was adjudged guilty criminal contempt his conduct as a witness in state trial hearing presided over by judge before whom occurred at trial. Court Appeals affirmed conviction, 12 N.Y.2d 1013, 1104, 239 N.Y.S.2d 135, 240 168, 189 N.E.2d 629, 190 539, we noted probable jurisdiction to consider whether procedures seemingly authorized § 750 751 Judiciary Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. were consistent with Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment. 375 809, 51, 46. We have decided that constitutional objections which this record shows been seasonably tendered courts them are without merit. I. 2 proceeding grew out Hulan Jack conspiracy obstruct justice violation York's conflict interests laws. lawyer, an important prosecution witness, familiar matters on charges based immune fro testimony these grand jury. From outset second trial, hostile engaged much wrangling prosecutor form questions asked unresponsive various questions. Although counsel defendant did not object, believed prosecutor's presented defendant's case bad light or failed elicit whole truth.1 On several occasions instructed answer they asked, if he could, but rephrase offer gratuitously.2 When Ungar heed instructions, admonished him chambers 'to confine answers questions' leave defense accused's counsel; warned would hold natural consequences acts. pattern, however, continued. November 25, third day stand, court give responsive question apparent significance State's case. Thereupon answering, requested recess, claiming being 'pressured coerced intimidated into testifying' 'badgered District Attorney.' granted short recess refused permission following ensued: 3 'The Witness: I can't testify, I'm sorry, your Honor. am any physical mental condition testify. 4 Court: Witness, no one you anything. Nobody is questioning you. You testifying. taken about three minutes silence, will take few minutes. 5 like 6 No, may stand. 7 Proceed, Scotti. 8 going questions, testify confusion, nor anyone else make me emotional state. absolutely unfit because Honor's attitude towards me. badgered. suppressing evidence. 9 only contemptuous disorderly insolent.'3 10 called during coun el appoint doctor determine malingering incapable Upon resumption, represented obtained own medical assistance, agreed competent denied request. testified another further incident. ended December 6, 1960, afternoon 8, Judge Sarafite, judge, pursuant procedure governing nonsummary contempts, had served showcause order charging Ungar's remarks from stand 25 constituted willful disruptive ordering appellant appear 13 a.m. defend against charges. presiding hearing, motions continuance, retained permitted withdraw upon informing undertake could obtain continuance. After exhibits material admitted evidence, defend. He declined, arguing continuance should be granted. found and, taking consideration stress sentenced days' imprisonment imposed fine. Appellate Division Supreme dismissed appeal, review proceedings, petition under Article 78, Civil Practice Act, summary convictions,4 both opinion. 16 A.D.2d 617. affirmed, also 629. It appellant's motion reargument, part federal claims asserted, amend remittitur show certain passed appeal. Treating appeal 78 identically, ruled amended rights Amendment raised stated 'appellant argued such violated (1) judge's refusal grant adjournment proof engagement (2) invoking power section Law (Consol.Laws, 30), seven days after end committed, (3) same resulting even though 'personally attacked." In response contention, personal attack judge. 169, 539. II. determined must want jurisdiction. Jurisdictional Statement contains statutory validity 750, unduly vague, authorizing who personally attacked preside proceedings occurs. Nothing issues prior reargument remittitur. Only latter then part. Therefore determinative necessarily courts. Bailey v. Anderson, 326 203, 66 66, 90 L.Ed. 3. That speaks asserted does indicate statute 'drawn question' sustained objections. Mergenthaler Linotype Co. Davis, 251 256, 259, 40 133, 134, 64 255; Charleston Federal Savings & Loan Assn. Alderson, 324 182, 185—186, 65 624, 627, 89 857. accordingly dismissed.5 certiorari, certiorari granted, 28 U.S.C. 2103, Anonymous Nos. Baker, 360 287, 79 1157, 1234, limited, states petitioner which, assume, upon. III. 14 Petitioner, fair necessarily, more, biased disqualified post-trial hearing. rejected claim see error conclusion. Assuming there criticisms judicial so probably productive bias disqualify himself avoid case, agree 15 true objected strongly orders its examination. His final outburst, subject contempt, flat answer, when directed court, together intemperate worded comment propriety court's ruling. But unwilling bottom rule disqualification solely disobedience criticism rulings course Nilva United States, 352 385, 77 431, 415.6 cannot assume judges irascible sensitive fairly impartially deal resistance their authority highly charged arguments soundness decisions. Apparently required rather than some others answered cease volunteering testimony, claimed 'badgered' 'coerced' 'suppressing evidence.' This disruptive, recalcitrant disagreeable commentary, hardly insulting integrity carrying potential require disqualification. Nor anything substance deprivation petitioner's right tried unbiased impartial direct interest outcome Tumey Ohio, 273 510, 47 437, 71 749. re Murchison, 349 75 623, 99 942. held acting one-man jury investigating crime convict witnesses falsely inadequately secret controlling here. For Oliver, 333 257, 68 499, 92 682, Murchison abundantly clear dealing therein traditional category contempts committed open likened so-called camera especially founded perjury 17 Unlike Cooke 267 517, 45 390, 69 767, Offutt 348 11, cases lower sufficient convicting us abiding impression become embroiled petitioner. Whatever disagreement between stemmed exercise Petitioner requiring put caviling fully accord obligation maintain orderly administration protect Neither courtroom privacy petitioner.7 dealt firmly animosity, outburst provoked reflex Fisher Pace, 336 155, 425, 93 569. characterization contemptuous, disorderly, most declaration charge petitioner, observations, constitutionally disqualifying prejudgment guilt, just issuance show-cause information brought attention guilt. Moreover, although believing purport proceed summarily conclusion gave notice afforded opportunity conducted dispassionately decorum befitting proceeding. circumstances, say bias, likelihood appearance unable balance vindicating accused. IV. 18 Petitioner's additional centers denial said deprived engage charge. State, among other arguments, denies all, relying Sacher 343 1, 72 451, 96 717, permitting do need not, circumstances resort instance, assuming required,8 satisfied requirements due process.9 682; Green, 369 689, 82 1114, 198. 19 matter traditionally within discretion it every request more time violates process party fails evidence compelled counsel. Avery Alabama, 308 444, 60 321, 377. Contrariwise, myopic insistence expeditiousness face justifiable delay can render empty formality. Chandler Fretag, 3, 4. There mechanical tests deciding arbitrary violate process. present particularly reasons denied. 415; Torres 270 F.2d 252 (C.A.9th Cir.); cf. States Arlen, 491 (C.A.2d Cir.). 20 Thursday p.m.,10 scheduled Tuesday appeared appointed time. Two continuances allow lawyer Ungar. arrived, again one-week delay, unfamiliar contacted until Saturday busily trying adjournment, view hire available decision, all five given inadequate prepare fresh, readily available, limited clear-cut revolving statement made recently completed t ial. Furthermore, practice granting adjournments. 21 motion, proceeded. grounds ground hours needed enable expert showing intended. referred snowstorm previous Sunday Monday allegedly prevented preparation find reason why proof, conceded producible hours, name call testimony. reasonably concluded reliance inclement weather less candid since counsel's represent grounded These are, course, arguable, might well circumstances. fact something arguable unconstitutional. Given deference regard continuances, denials law. 22 judgments affirmed. 23 Affirmed. 24 HARLAN, concurring. join Court, wish add employed Sarafite accorded ,S.Ct. 717. far Constitution concerned, proceeded close main all. adjudication followed five-day two cannot, matter, deemed extinguished summarily. 26 DOUGLAS, BLACK GOLDBERG concur, dissenting. 27 classic example situation where cites person trial.1 result 17, 15, became embroiled' later contempt; we, our supervisory system, ordered new disinterested standards. start what Chief Taft wrote 396, 767: 29 'This caution mandatory has element banish slightest impulse reprisal, bend backward injure too great leniency. substitution either tendency always possible. Of acts palpably aggravated drive ulterior reasons, scheme succeed. attempts kind rare. All cases, difficult that, conditions impracticable, public private right, act him, may, flinching duty, properly ask fellow place.' 30 annals apt one. Here cited substance, malingerer trial—indeed citation. 31 ended.2 fined $250 jail. conviction remittitur: 32 '* * point alleged consists making wrongdoing should, disposition withheld otherwise practicable, different judge.' (Italics added.) thought involve 'the himself' upheld offended charge, read it, wrongdoing: 33 'On respondent, wilful sitting immediate presence, wilfully repeated effort, obvious disrupt therein, culminated shouting loud, angry, insolent tone directly tending interrupt impair respect 34 "I evidence." 35 evidence' certainly 'wrongdoing,' sense malfeasance. indeed complain 'attitude conduct' toward him. 'I badgered,' meant setting those words alone misconducting also. Any doubt dispelled statement, whatever aimed implicated proprieties. 36 episode head-on collision understand therefore truthfully answer. complained faked: 37 If Honor please, point. upset, nervous. And voluntary witness. pressured testifying, 38 shall pause minute two, Witness. 39 '(Whereupon, brief interval silence courtroom.) shaking over. bundle nerves point, don't know doing saying more. 41 privilege leaving 42 remain 43 44 46 48 49 50 insolent. 51 52 Put question, 53 'Q. tell morning story Bechtel's me? 54 'A. concentrating saying. think clearly 55 Do refuse answer? 56 talking about, Judge. wreck asking recess. get off contain myself 57 Ungar? 58 59 Reporter. 'Mr. Scotti: Reporter, question. 61 '(The Stenographer follows: "Q. me?') 62 Let remained silent four 63 mean What say? defendant. Obviously Very well, advance luncheon 67 'Do discuss ladies gentlemen, express guilt innocence finally submitted Since advancing hour back here 1:45. retire. jurors left room took place absence:) Baker (counsel defendant): heard leaves? 70 Yes. Baker: emotionally mentally So crystal clear, sort. my judgment, near ever f om observation. 73 request, please. 74 application? application is, law presumes testifies lucid. says not. gives prejudicial That's objection, presently existing detriment reserve decision decide it. 76 '(After returned courtroom, present, place:) wanted sides why, then, acted haven't having entitled anybody else, didn't lose help glad indicated purpose remain. purpose, able save Would burden minutes? 80 81 Is addressing 83 burden, Honor, malingering, issue started. minutes, go lunch. 85 '(A taken; returned.) 86 up mind action take. ought 87 Now, personally, recall that? 88 do, Now come back, still recess? Well, report went hospital received injection, temporarily, addition pills morning. 91 well. proceed, Honor? Yes.' 94 ruling examine said: 95 everyone resumed 1:45 P.M. while testifying announcement stood. shot, could. temporarily. 97 understood declaring consequently formal record. 98 'To possible now deny motion.' A financial 749, will, sitting. As case: 100 mayor fees costs $12, Prohibition Act months $100 month, salary. prospect receipt loss emolument each minute, remote, trifling insignificant interest. defendant, careful weigh acquittal.' Id., 531—532 U.S., 444 S.Ct., 101 emotional. supra, involved closely related arising 'one-man jury' doubts way refusing reversed saying, 102 'It very strange system try persons accused investigations. Perhaps State forced accept proper pass growing hearings. single 'judge-grand accusatory ordinary lay juror. Having be, nature things, wholly acquittal While likely zeal prosecutor, none zeal. Fair trials free society let prosecuting prefer.' 137, 625, 103 stronger reversal Murchison. inferred. evidence,' replied, 'You insolent.' condemned Thus, long trial—long filed—the many words—that 'contemptuous.' travesty American announced sit judgment 104 Judges human; caught altercation objectivity basic sick faking. excused coming lips man, excused. malingerer; doctor. 105 aspect emphasizes faking, admissible conclusive. crucial basis saw depended ill, as, contrariwise, openly resisted marshal, Ex parte Terry, 128 289, 77, 405. 106 man right—the cross-examine. tries examining cross-examining b spectacle presenting determining event benefit knowledge effective cross-examine essential jeopardized way.' 139, 626, 107 An cross-currents emotions enveloping edge tyranny. 108 GOLDBERG, DOUGLAS join, 109 Brother requires 110 recognized impose punishment is: 111 'capable grave abuses, (the never any) encouragement expansion beyond suppression court-disrupting misconduct justified exercise.' 274, 508, 682. 112 'marked limits general least adequate proposed." Ibid., quoting Anderson Dunn, Wheat. 204, 231, 242. 113 hold, therefore, forbids except creates "an threat (that if) instantly suppressed punished, demoralization follow," 275 508 536, 394, 'no explanation mitigate (contemner's) offence, disprove court's) dignity deserved instant punishment.' 310, 81, 114 punish fashion recognized, fraught danger, contempt. 115 convincingly demonstrated necessitate punishment, introduction mitigated disproved offense, consisted essentially 116 conclude, summarily,* explaining Division: facts known belief E. innocent crimes including Trial. believes truth Attorney County, created reasonable Jack's innocence, deliberately suppressed, hereinafter. One foregoing effect moment exhaustion 1960.' incidents typical: discussions? preliminary discussion Gale. to. sorry. discussed lease Gale Cymrot, correct? discussed— that. way. Next Cymrot Gale, how frame because— enough. Did talk people? you? About lease, terms lease? you, then: discussing owners 299 Broadway—I proposed Bureau Real Estate Board Estimate consideration, date Estimate, October 1957, Jack? remember. ember refreshed recollection Grand Jury subject. mindful memory matter? conversations. last now, adopt there. thereupon conference bench. Counsel bench jury, presence jury: Jury, concerning anything, problem lawyers discussed, 'Now, please yes no, Don't volunteer 'Proceed. testimony? mentioned casually buying property city lessee, trial— independent conversation. property, half dozen times too.' Was Just minute. reading. times, spoke times. listen questioner 'Did follows trial?' Try look figures front explain simplify quickly. Please statements 'As before, litigation. They phrase explain, satisfactory that's business. keep mind, you.' Section York, defines as: '1. Disorderly, behavior, sitting, authority. *' Douglas Adel, 269 N.Y. 144, 199 N.E. 35; People ex rel. Negus Dwyer, 402; Pugh Winter, 253 App.Div. 295, 9; Brewer Platzek, 133 117 N.Y.S. 852. Decisions punished applicable court. Goodman Sala, 268 826, 245; Choate Barrett, Hun 351, aff'd, 121 678, 1095. Appellant concedes Vagueness objection explicitly Appeals. invoke 751, expressly declined construe authorize proceedings. Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 42(b): 'Disposition Notice Hearing. (except disposition) prosecuted notice. allowing defense, constituting describe such. involves disrespect consent.' excerpt chamber persistent instructions intense once considerable days. number tended incidents, judgment. told first creating serious assumed knew was. repetition happened 'We function perform Whether agreeable concern. 'Now volunteer, dispute discussions, alone. accordance understanding law, doing. hope word, may. Then understand— saying— further, said, didn't. vacuum; say, argue me, got merely says, 'Answer it,' doesn't it's false impression— Will desist. see, business lawyer. litigation, return courtroom. 'There presumed intend act. standard. test use propose take.' 'Not citizen, act, higher standard knowing responsible 'Also, citizen rules 'Let's please— not— Witness:—to made. 'Your intimidating. Your coercive, statement. intends submit now. insist takes action. propounded framed reflection fact—I right— Keep voice down, kept down. apologize. stop raise voice. intimidating coercing threatening disagree disagreed. 'And suggest speak speak, on—please. calling intimidate coerce sl ghtest. unseemly performance tolerate. let's believe tried— speak. Have questions? Let's Courtroom. question—' disposes argument set invocation include adequately advised charges, meet mitigation, representation counsel, witnesses. available' 'immediate prevent 'demoralization public." 275, 509, participating recommended issued cause instances disruption correctly feels necessary restore full, civil undue prejudice attempting accommodate conflicting demands, latitude, overriding principle exercised proposed.' 242;

Category: 0