United States v. Britton
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20288
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Brindley represented Britton; district court held him in contempt under Fed.R.Crim.P. 42(b) for failure to appear and for allegedly false statements; Brindley appealed and the court granted emergency release pending appeal; this court vacated the contempt and remanded for further proceedings.
- Britton faced cocaine conspiracy charges; Brindley and Thompson appeared as counsel for Britton; Britton and Colon scheduled for joint trial; Brindley failed to appear at a hearing on pretrial motions and status conferences.
- On November 26 Brindley was ordered to appear in person; he did not appear; a show-cause hearing was scheduled for November 30; Brindley sought continuances and cited other trials.
- The government filed a notice indicating Witczak (Brindley’s associate) was handling Eatman; Brindley asserted Witczak would seek continuance and Brindley would try Eatman; Brindley provided explanations and affidavits.
- The district court found Brindley lied about his availability and made false statements; it held him in contempt under Rule 42(b) and remanded him for 48 hours; on appeal, the district court’s factual findings and method were challenged as improper under Rule 42(a).
- The appellate court vacated the contempt finding and remanded for proceedings under Rule 42(a), noting insufficient record for summary contempt and potential need for further factual development.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary contempt under Rule 42(b) was proper | Brindley | Brindley | Not proper; remand under Rule 42(a) warranted |
| Whether the evidence supports contempt as a matter of law | Brindley | Brindley | Insufficient on record; remand necessary for development under Rule 42(a) |
| What remedy is appropriate on remand | State-side procedures under Rule 42(a) should be followed | Remand with new proceedings avoids double jeopardy | Remand for Rule 42(a) proceedings; no double jeopardy concern |
Key Cases Cited
- Trudeau, 606 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2010) (remand appropriate to develop record under Rule 42(a))
- Gates, 600 F.3d 336 (7th Cir. 2010) (negligence insufficient for criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3))
- Troutt, 460 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2006) (remand when procedural defects require development of record)