Court Opinion

ID: 9719671
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:58:59.543835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:08.807418
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE CAHILL, concurring: I write separately to make an observation. Nothing demeans the judiciary more than a frivolous and mean-spirited exercise of the contempt power. A judge who lunges for the contempt remedy at the first sign of perceived impertinence is not unlike the television cartoon judge who needs a gavel to control his courtroom. Both the contempt power and the gavel are seldom used by the judge who is sure-footed, and almost never used when interacting with a lawyer. Judges have an enormous range of remedies for dealing with impertinent lawyers, from the subtle to stern admonition. Contempt is always a last resort reserved for the most egregious behavior. Incarceration of a lawyer as a sanction is almost always an abuse of the contempt power and a signal that the judge who orders it has lost control of his courtroom and his temper. Based on the cold record, this case seems to fall into that category. We can only reverse. It is not in our power to fashion a remedy other than reversal, but had we the power to order a public apology, I would not hesitate to do so.