In re Deters, 2020 Ohio 3518

Background

The Ohio Supreme Court appointed retired Judge Mark Schweikert to preside over numerous medical-malpractice cases involving Dr. Abubakar Atiq Durrani; the Deters Law Firm (where Eric Deters works) represented many plaintiffs.
Parties agreed to a gag order in April 2018 (and reiterated in July 2019) prohibiting public discussion of the Durrani cases by parties, counsel, agents, employees, and witnesses; it also required removal of violating online content.
After the trial court denied group trials following an August 6, 2019 case-management order, Deters planned a public protest; the court warned that public commentary could be treated as direct contempt.
On August 22, 2019 Deters publicly spoke at the courthouse steps (news media present) and posted social-media content about redacted verdicts; the court later issued a show-cause order and held a contempt hearing September 3, 2019.
The court held a hearing, received exhibits (video, Facebook screenshot, orders), found Deters in contempt, and sentenced him to 15 days in jail; Deters appealed, arguing denial of counsel, denial of a public trial, denial of continuances, and insufficiency of the evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether contempt was direct (summary) or indirect (requiring full due process)	Deters argued he was denied due process and the court lacked personal knowledge, so indirect contempt protections were required	Court/Schweikert asserted Deters’s acts were direct contempt and summary punishment was appropriate	Court held conduct warranted an indirect contempt proceeding and afforded due-process protections
Waiver of counsel	Deters contended he never validly waived counsel and repeatedly objected to proceeding without an attorney	Court argued it could infer waiver from Deters’s conduct, experience, and failure to secure counsel timely	Court inferred waiver from totality of circumstances and required Deters to proceed pro se (no error)
Right to a public trial (hearing after courthouse hours)	Deters argued holding the hearing after courthouse public hours violated his right to a public trial	Court noted closure was inadvertent/minimal, courtroom doors were open, press and spectators were present	Court held no public-trial violation given limited/inadvertent closure and lack of excluded spectators
Denial of continuance / compulsory process	Deters argued the court improperly denied continuances to secure witnesses (including Judge Sundermann)	Court noted Deters failed to proffer testimony, did not subpoena, and raised the request late	Court held denial of continuances was not an abuse of discretion and Deters showed no prejudice
Sufficiency and admissibility of evidence	Deters argued exhibits were never formally admitted and evidence was insufficient to prove contempt	Court treated exhibits as admitted by conduct and relied on video, posts, and Deters’s admissions	Court deemed exhibits admitted and found sufficient evidence to prove intent to violate the gag order beyond a reasonable doubt

Key Cases Cited

Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 (1962) (waiver of counsel must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent)
United States v. Anderson, 881 F.3d 568 (7th Cir. 2018) (public-trial closure analysis; trivial, limited exclusions may not violate right)
Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (1964) (continuance doctrine; discretion and case-specific prejudice inquiry)
State ex rel. Scripps Howard Broadcasting Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Div., 73 Ohio St.3d 19 (1995) (public access extends to general contempt proceedings)
State v. Broom, 40 Ohio St.3d 277 (1988) (defendant must show prejudice from denial of continuance)
United States v. Barrett, 111 F.3d 947 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (exhibits may be treated as admitted where parties and court act as if admitted)
United States v. Stapleton, 494 F.2d 1269 (9th Cir. 1974) (same principle on admission by conduct)
State v. Brown, 307 Kan. 641 (2018) (same principle regarding exhibits treated as admitted)