Court Opinion

ID: 9460482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:51:42.281654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:38.494681
License: Public Domain

WEICK, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree with the majority that the contempt charge did not involve disrespect of the Judge, and the Judge therefore was not required under Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to disqualify himself.
I further agree that the District Judge had jurisdiction, power and authority to compel the supervisor of claims of the insurer, who was in charge of the handling of the case, to appear in Court to attend a pretrial conference. The insurer was the real party in interest and the Court ought not be required at pretrial to deal only with lawyers who had no authority except to try the case.
I further agree that LaMarre’s arrest was lawful.
I part company with my colleagues only in their holdings that the Judge did not issue a definite order or command, and that such order had to be in writing.
The two orders to appear in court at a specified time were certainly as definite as they could be made. Both orders were made part of the record in the case. In my opinion it was not necessary for the orders, made upon a party in open court, to be in writing. Many orders are made every day by Judges in open court, or in pretrial conferences, which are not in writing.
None of the cases cited by the majority supports their thesis, either expressly or by implication.
The’ majority opinion graphically portrays on pages 2 and 3 the painstaking efforts of the Judge and his infinite patience in his attempt to secure La-Marre’s attendance at the pretrial conference. Initially the Judge made only requests for LaMarre to attend; when these requests were repeatedly disobeyed, the Judge then ordered him, on two different occasions, to attend. LaMarre for the fourth time declined to attend. He was given notice of the orders of the Court by his own attorney, Milan, who filed an affidavit so stating.
The conduct of LaMarre was a flagrant violation of the orders of the Court and was contumacious.
We ought not to impair the power and authority of a Judge to conduct efficiently a pretrial conference or a trial.
I would affirm the judgment of conviction for contempt.