In re: William Goode, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6918

Attorney William L. Goode (not counsel of record) attended and assisted a pro se defendant (Stanford) at trial after previously representing a related defendant; he passed notes from the bar and helped with trial preparation.
During a day on which a co-defendant (Domingue) attempted suicide and a mistrial was later granted, Goode gave media interviews asserting Domingue’s innocence and criticizing the government; those interviews were published.
The district court initiated proceedings and the Chief Judge found Goode violated Western District of Louisiana Local Criminal Rule 53.5 (which bars extrajudicial statements by lawyers associated with prosecution or defense during trial) and suspended him from practice in that district for six months.
Goode appealed, arguing (1) he was not within the rule’s scope because he was not counsel of record, (2) the court needed a bad-faith finding to sanction him, and (3) L. Crim. R. 53.5 is unconstitutional as applied and facially under the First Amendment.
The Fifth Circuit held that Goode was “associated with the defense” under the rule, that a bad-faith finding is not required for local-rule sanctions, but that L. Crim. R. 53.5, as applied to Goode, is an unconstitutional prior restraint because it is not narrowly tailored and is not the least restrictive means to protect trial fairness; it reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of L. Crim. R. 53.5 — who is covered?	Goode: Rule should be limited to counsel of record (trial participants).	Government: Rule covers any lawyer "associated" with prosecution or defense based on functional involvement.	Court: "Associated" (verb) includes attorneys who join or assist the defense; Goode fell within rule.
Requirement of bad-faith finding before sanctioning	Goode: Sanction required explicit finding of bad faith.	Government: Bad-faith finding required only for inherent-power sanctions, not for sanctions under local rules.	Court: Bad-faith finding not required to impose sanction under a local rule.
As-applied First Amendment challenge (prior restraint)	Goode: Rule, as applied to his media statements, violated First Amendment because it was overbroad and not narrowly tailored.	Government: Rule justified to protect fair trial; Chief Judge found substantial likelihood of prejudice.	Court: Rule is a prior restraint and, as applied to Goode, was not narrowly tailored nor the least restrictive means; unconstitutional as applied.
Facial First Amendment challenge	Goode: Rule is facially overbroad and presumptively invalid.	Government: Rule serves important interest in fair trials.	Court: Did not reach facial challenge because as-applied ruling sufficed.

Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991) (upheld Nevada rule limiting extrajudicial statements by lawyers in pending cases as a permissible balance with fair-trial interests)
United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2000) (approved "substantial likelihood" standard for gag orders on trial participants and required narrow tailoring)
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (recognizing federal courts' inherent powers, including disciplining attorneys)
Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984) (upholding limits on dissemination of discovery materials and distinguishing press and trial-participant speech)
Levine v. United States Dist. Court for Central Dist. of California, 764 F.2d 590 (9th Cir. 1985) (discussing standards for prior restraints on speech)
Marceaux v. Lafayette City-Par. Consol. Gov't, 731 F.3d 488 (5th Cir. 2013) (noting duty to minimize prejudicial pretrial publicity)