Court Opinion

ID: 9635687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:59:40.274742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:32.826395
License: Public Domain

MACK, Associate Judge
(concurring):
I reach the same result as my colleagues by a somewhat different route. Appellant was ordered confined until such time as he complies with a presumptively valid court order to produce a handwriting exemplar. Since the order is clearly civil in nature rather than criminal,1 Rule 42 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure is, by its terms, inapplicable. Civil contempt proceedings are, however, subject to the usual due process requirements. Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 371, 86 S. Ct. 1531, 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966); In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273-75, 68 S.Ct. 499, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948). One charged with civil contempt must be given adequate notice of the charge and an opportunity to be heard with counsel.2 A careful review of the record discloses that appellant was afforded these procedural safeguards. After twice refusing to submit handwriting exemplars as ordered, appellant was brought before the court, with counsel, and informed that he would be held in contempt if he did not comply with the order on the next day. At a hearing approximately 23 hours later, he refused to obey an order to submit handwriting samples to a police officer present in court. Appellant’s counsel objected to the order on procedural grounds and presented detailed legal arguments on the procedural issues involved. There is no indication that he would not have been afforded the same opportunity to present arguments on substantive issues as well, had he requested to do so. Instead, appellant did not attempt to provide any justification for his refusal to obey the order. In the circumstances of this case, there was adequate notice to appellant, reasonable time in which to prepare a defense, and a fair hearing.3 Accordingly, the procedures employed did not infringe upon appellant’s due process rights or his rights under the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure.

. See Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 86 S.Ct. 1531, 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966).

. See In re Oliver, supra; United States v. Boe, 491 F.2d 970, 971 (8th Cir.1974); United States v. Handler, 476 F.2d 709, 712-14 (2nd Cir.1973); United States v. Weinberg, 439 F.2d 743, 746-47 (9th Cir.1971); In re Bart, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 54, 60 n. 18, 304 F.2d 631, 637 n. 18 . (1962); Parker v. United States, 153 F.2d 66, 70 (1st Cir.1946). See also Groppi v. Leslie, 404 U.S. 496, 502-03, 92 S.Ct. 582, 30 L.Ed. 2d 632 (1972); Gooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 537, 45 S.Ct. 390, 69 L.Ed. 767 (1925). As a general rule, summary disposition is appropriate only under circumstances in which the contumacious conduct disrupts ongoing proceedings in open court. See United States v. Wilson, 421 U.S. 309, 95 S.Ct. 1802, 44 L.Ed.2d 186 (1975) (criminal contempt); Harris v. United States, 382 U.S. 162, 86 S.Ct. 352, 15 L.Ed.2d 240 (1965) (criminal contempt) ; In re Oliver, supra (civil contempt).

. See In re Sadin, 509 F.2d 1252, 1255-56 (2d Cir.1975); United States v. Handler, supra; United States v. Weinberg, supra.