Court Opinion

ID: 9462567
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:44:06.63417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:39.117747
License: Public Domain

HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judge
(concurring and dissenting):
I agree with the majority opinion’s holding that Mr. Allis’s tardiness could not be *1396summarily punished under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the contempt order can be upheld under Rule 42(b).
The district court did not purport to rely on Rule 42(b), and the record fails to support the decision that the procedure followed complied with Rule 42(b). No evidentiary hearing was held, no witness was sworn, and no testimony was received. The evidence consisted solely of the facts that the time set for Allis’s appearance was March 6, 1974, at 1:15 p. m., and he did not appear until 1:35 p. m. on that date.
The majority correctly assumes that a finding of contempt under Rule 42(b) could not be sustained based only on evidence that a forgetful lawyer was 20 minutes late for a court appearance. The lawyer would be negligent, but his conduct could not be deemed a reckless disregard of his responsibilities as a lawyer nor a wilful disobedience of a court order. The majority concludes that Mr. Allis’s unsworn statement that he had been late on some other unspecified occasion or occasions bridged the evidentiary gap. I do not think that the informal exchange between the district court and Mr. Allis can be deemed evidence or even an admission in this Rule 42(b) context.
However, even if I thought that Mr. Allis’s statement of previous tardiness was an adequate substitute for formal admissions or testimony, I cannot find that the procedural requisites of Rule 42(b) were met. “Although the ‘simple notice’ required by Rule 42(b) is to be judged with less strictness than a formal indictment [citations omitted], due process as well as the rule require that it contain enough to inform [the alleged contemnor] of the nature and particulars of the contempt charged.” (United States v. Robinson (9th Cir. 1971) 449 F.2d 925.) The informal statement from the bench did not meet the requirement of particularity. The district court noted that Mr. Allis was 30 minutes late on this occasion-and that on some other occasions he had also been late. The “notice” specified no dates of the prior tardiness. Yet, the conduct on prior occasions was necessarily in issue. The informal notice thus did not meet the simple standards of Rule 42(b). (United States v. Robinson, supra.)
The time given within which to prepare a defense was patently inadequate. A ten-minute recess and a quick consultation with another lawyer is insufficient to permit a defense to be made to a charge that Mr. Allis was habitually late or, at least had been late without justifiable excuse on other occasions. (See, e. g., United States v. Alter (9th Cir. 1973) 482 F.2d 1016, 1023.)
I am fully aware of the serious imposition upon the court, the litigants, and other participants in the judicial process that is caused by tardy lawyers. Concern about the problem and empathy for the exasperation of the court imposed upon must not blind us to violation of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. I cannot join in a memorandum properly rejecting the use of summary contempt under Rule 42(a) and approving procedures equally summary under Rule 42(b). The effect is to reduce the nonsummary procedures of criminal contempt prescribed by Rule 42(b) to levels acceptable only under Rule 42(a).
I would vacate the contempt and remand the cause to the district court.