Court Opinion

ID: 9452599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:45:57.113392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:17.128134
License: Public Domain

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Harvey R. Bitter, defendant, has appealed from a judgment of the district court convicting him, upon a trial without a jury, of using the United States mails for the purpose of executing a scheme and artifice to defraud and for obtaining money by false and fraudulent pretenses, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1341, as charged in counts 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of an indictment. By said judgment defendant was ordered imprisoned for a period of one year and a day and fined $500, on each count, said sentences to be served concurrently.1
On the trial before the court the government rested its case early in the afternoon of August 25, 1965.
Defendant was called as the first witness in his own behalf. He was examined by his own counsel on direct examination and then briefly cross-examined by government counsel. During further direct examination of defendant numerous documents were identified by him and a recess of court was taken until 3:45 o’clock to permit government counsel to inspect them and for the clerk to mark them. At the latter time defense counsel advised the court that, although he had instructed defendant to be in court at 3:45 o’clock, he had not arrived. After the court had waited 18 minutes for the appearance of defendant, he said to defense counsel “You may contact his office.” Having left the courtroom for that purpose, defense counsel then returned and advised the court that defendant was “on his way back for more than 20 minutes * * * so we should be expecting him momentarily.” Defend*750ant returned to the courtroom at 4:20 o’clock. Thereupon the court stated
“ * * * defendant’s arrival 37 minutes late has interrupted and disrupted the trial of this case and the court’s work.
“I direct that the United States Marshal, when court recesses for the evening, take the defendant in custody and keep him in custody throughout the trial of this case.” (Emphasis supplied.)
It is contended by defendant’s counsel that the fact that during the remainder of the trial2 defendant was kept in custody effectively deprived his counsel of an opportunity to properly represent him during the remainder of the trial. This contention becomes more significant in view of the fact that, on oral argument in this court, government counsel admitted that during his confinement, as directed by the district judge, defendant was held in a Wisconsin jail at Kenosha, located about 40 miles from the federal courtroom in Milwaukee. Defendant’s motion for a mistrial because of the entry of the aforesaid order was denied.
It is apparent to us that the action of the district court resulted in actually making difficult any contact between defendant and his counsel when the trial was not actually proceeding in the courtroom. This restriction necessarily substantially interfered with the opportunity traditionally enjoyed by counsel to discuss with his client the testimony offered by the government and the available use of proper evidence to be offered by way of defense. We agree with counsel for defendant that the suddenness of the order of confinement was an added impediment to an adequate defense. Unfortunately the punishment inflicted for what the court deemed defendant’s improper delay in reaching the courtroom resulted in not only the summary imprisonment of defendant but deprived his counsel of the usual opportunity for consulting with his client at or near the place where the trial was being conducted. The order of the court seriously invaded the constitutionally erected safeguards for the protection of the right of a defendant to consult with, and be assisted by his counsel.3
Accordingly I would reverse the judgment below and remand this cause for a new trial.

. On motion of the government, count 14 was dismissed. On defendant’s motion he was acquitted as to counts 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13. Defendant was found not guilty as to counts 1, 2, 6 and 19. Prior to the return of the aforesaid indictment defendant had been named in a previous indictment which was dismissed after defendant had filed pre-trial motions thereto.

. The order for confinement was entered on August 25, 1965 and the trial ended on August 27.

. In addition,' it may be pointed' out that there was no compliance with rule 42 (a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides:
(a) Summary Disposition. A criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the judge certifies that he saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt and that it was committed in the actual presence of the court. The order of contempt shall recite the facts and shall be signed by the judge and entered of record.