Levine Contempt Case

struct in case it jury awards dam- that, plaintiff it should its specify by also verdict whether it ages, found the to be In injury permanent temporary. would record whether way, appear plain- fully tiff the jury’s verdict compensated damages permanent injury due to his land or he retained a successive actions for right whether nuisance continued. so as the damages long affirmed. Order Justice

Mr. Musmanno dissents. Contempt Case.

Levine Before October 1952. Argued 1, Stern, Stearns, Chidsey JJ. Musmanno, Jones, Bell, March

reargument refused 1953. Frank O.

John with him Moretti and Powers, 8. Michael A. Barletta, appellant. him &

J. Glenn Cohan Berry, Berry, appel- lee.

Opinion Feb- Mr. Chief Horace Justice Stern, 1953: ruary 14, a member of the proceedings against

Contempt cannot they are but be avoid- fortunately rare, bar well reasonably judge con- of the belief ed is when impair the au- as to the offender has been such duct of thority dignity and of the court. County Hon. W.

In consist courts Lawrence Judge, the President Hon. John Walter Braham, Judge. District The Additional Law GL Lamoree, Attorney one Assist- and he has K. Levine Sherman Judge Braham Friday, ant. November On presiding dis- in a courtrooms one two was involving opening pute fol- boxes, ballot some lowing “non-support” cases there two were Judge presiding in the other was heard; Lamoree sentencing taking guilty pleas defend- courtroom, Attorney Both Assistant ants. the District his helping dispose in the latter room busi- were being appears been there It that it had ness transacted. expedite pro- customary, in order to more less Attorney ceedings, Assist- for both the District being pleas ant to officiate room were same imposed. Judge taken and When sentences ready up non-support to take cases sent messenger room to tell the Dis- Lamoree^s Attorney required attendance trict returned court. District Braham-’s busy word that he and his Assistant were they Lamoree-’s court and come would over Shortly they Braham-’s room could. there- as soon as Judge message after a to sent similar which Braham Attorney reply; third the District made the same re- quest response. Finally, the same some met with two opened, after court had came into hours Assistant Judge shortly thereafter followed room, Braham^s Attorney Judge the District himself. Braham there- upon why provided asked the latter he had not a dis- according whéreupon, trict to room, finding Judge “He then broke into a rude Braham, saying and insolent denunciation ‘that’s up; way always mixing things with this court, day’ everything then said: is set on one ”. The people county paying for district “The are two this attorneys. They in each court- are entitled to have one Attorney replied: “The room.” To this District money’s county getting people of are their worth attorney’s from office.” the district help people in the courtroom could not states that Attorney ignored knowing had the District requests interchange of also attendance; many per- forth audible to the remarks above set were present. sons there Monday, not

On December hav- Braham, ing any explanation apology from the Dis- or received Attorney, and there him into his chambers trict called give him him that he this alternative,— said to would public appear in court for a rebuke or be either to contempt; at time the ex- cited for the same Attorney friendly feelings pressed the District toward regret being obliged great to take such ac- and his charged preserving he but stated that tion, authority County dignity of the Lawrence Judge. the President The next courts of which was Attorney day him a letter in the District wrote which conduct had not been as to re- he said that his such quire any explanation apology, and that he could justice any public reproof; submit himself, not, regarding proceeded: “Your letter statements friendly us are and do between insincere not relations your impress I the fact that conduct me. believe investigation by my matters is office certain now under motivating your present indo action.” had no little to upon 4 the court issued a rule December On why cause he should show District adjudged guilty the Dis- court,

617 trict filed an held on Attorney was answer; hearing December 17 at which time called both witnesses were by Judge the District Coun- Attorney. Beaham sel for the latter that a other than requested judge Beaham; to hear the on the assigned case, ground that the issue was him and the District between Attorney involved personal feelings, properly replied issue was between Beaham Quarter the Court of of Sessions and the County District and that there no ani- Attorney, personal was mosity between himself and the latter; accordingly refused to disqualify himself. Just before hearing had ivas the District sent to Beaham a letter in which he said the statement let- ter of December about an investigation being con- ducted office by his was not intended to be in the na- ture of a “threat” but merely an ansAver to the Judge’s professed for him friendship and his office which he felt to be insincere.

On January 23,1952 Judge Beaham filed an adjudi- cation Avith of findings and conclu- fact, discussion, of sions laAV. He found that the defendant had been of guilty three acts contempt; (1) “insulting denunciation of contemptuous the President court on open November 30 for cases fixing contrary to the wishes District “fail- Attorney;” (2) his reasonable upon ure, provide the request, assistance of a district Court Room Num- ber 1 on the same day;” (3) “the writing the insult- letter of ing December 4”. Sentence imposed upon the first these but acts, only such as “would be íavo for the appropriate first these alone.” offenses decree court’s “the Avas Sherman defendant, K. Levine found is guilty court on Novem- ber 1951 and directed the sum of pay one hun- dred dollars the use of the County the costs.” From that decree and sentence the District being appealed Superior divided to the Court which, question appeal proper disposition of the on the of the concurring majority being and there of the court no any af- in final decision, issue which would result thereupon granted firmed We, the decree sentence. appeal Attorney’s petition to this for an the District court. contempt

Generally speaking, guilty of one is authority bring and adminis to his conduct tends right punish disrespect. The to tration of into the law contempt in When inherent all courts. such is punish presence may, in committed in the court is its knowledge ing fur of without act its own offender, power, process, proof, “al ther or examination. Such though arbitrary to is in nature and liable abuse, its absolutely protection in courts to the of the essential Terry, discharge 128 Ex Parte of their functions”: power preserve U. S. 313. It “essential 289, authority prevent of and to their administration justice falling disrepute”: v. Fisher Pace, from into L. Act of June P. 1836, 336 U. S. 159. The 16, 155, recognizes power of the courts “the several §23, 784, summary punish- inflict of ... this commonwealth contempts court” in inter ments for cases, alia, any person presence “the misbehavior jus- obstructing thereby the administration court, tice.” disquali- justified refusing Braham hearing. judge

fy assign another for the himself and to might and there are It that he done this, is true a course has been recommended cases which such Snyder’s appellate Pa. courts: 301 our Case, 276, Sheasley, v. 102 Pa. 152 A. Commonwealth 37; 289, 33, Superior 157 30. See also Ct. 384, 391, A. 27, 29, In 267 U. S. 539. each v. United States, 517, Cooke of those there had been instances, however, acrimonious feelings judge between the and the whereas offender, nothing prior here there is to indicate the existence, any this occurrence, strained relations. That a judge disqualified contempt proceedings by is not against the fact that the was committed him- self inis accord with the almost unbroken current of Blodgett authorities cited in 52 A.L.E. see 1291; also Superior v. County, Santa Barbara subject Cal. 290 P. 1, where the is discussed at some length. appellant’s Nor is there merit conten- might tion while that, have taken im- contempt mediate action the occurred on Novem right proceed ber by the delaying 30, lost for three days to conducting issue the rule to show cause, hearing the entering two weeks and in not a later, adjudication final January and decree until 1952. 23, always It is within the discretion of the court wheth er to upon judge’s take action at based once, own knowledge postpone or to facts, action order testimony give opportunity take and the offender the Terry, make a defense: Ex Parte 128 U. S. 289, 311, United v. 313; States 182 F. 2d Sacher Sacher, 416; v. United 343 U. States, S. 1. In the latter case there delay finding contempt imposi a of and the punishment period eight tion of for a of more than months after the first act of misconduct had taken place days and ten after the most recent. But the Su- preme pointed (pp. Court of the United States out 9, 10) “summary” that the term does not relate to the timing procedure dispenses of the action but to formality delay with the that would result from process holding hearings, of and the of the issuance lawyers “If the conduct of these and that warranted summary punishment possible preju- ... no immediate delaying from them can result until the end dice to delay.” permit of the trial if the circumstances such justi- present B In the instance was well rah am choosing wisely, in to afford a and indeed acted fied, acting hearing im- to the District instead feelings indignation pulsively natural when his judicial might requisite poise overcome calm.

Passing general come now these we observations, Judge Braham’s to consider the conclusions merits upon findings having in mind based what fact, by Judge Adjudication In re Con- said Keller tempt Myers Superior 83 Pa. Ct. 387: Brei, 383, general “. . . as cases where rule,—as pres- arises from some misconduct committed appellate ence of the . . . will court, inquire the record further than to ascertain whether judgment . on the shows such misconduct . its ., generally question . . . The facts conclusive: wheth- alleged really charged er offender committed the act conclusively judg- determined the order will ment of the . . . .” also v. See Commonwealth court, 454. Of Grant as Newton, course, Keller subject quali- further said: “. . . this rule is . . . to the charged constituting fication that conduct degree delinquency that some of must be such predicated can be of for if the act it; or misbehavior only plainly or if it indifferent be meritorious, right party, of it of the undoubted the the assertion contempt by being adjudged criminal will not become to be so.” agree At- that the District

We public torney guilty of a insult to the court was way making the “That’s with this court, the statement: things everthing day.”1 always mixing up; for one is set say that, colloquy prepared the further 1 We are not people county paying of this are the court stated that “The equivalent public that the This was to a assertion incompetent arrangement its court in the of busi was merely particular occasion but “al ness,—not ways”. Certainly a calculated remark that kind was eyes persons in the court in of the belittle the the thereby impair dignity and au its courtroom, thority. present must It be remembered those undoubtedly were fact that the had aware the Attorney awaiting sent for District the was courteously When attendance. he instead entered, explaining openly appear his failure to sooner, offensively pertinent belabored the court. There here what was said Fisher v. 336 U. S. 161: Pace, type transcript “In a case of this record can- convey picture complete not to us the of the courtroom depict scene. It not does such elements of misbehavior expression, speaking, bearing, manner of and atti- petitioner. placed upon tude of the Reliance must be objectivity presiding judge. fairness of the ap- must be occurrence as a unit in order to viewed praise properly relationship and the misconduct, petitioner of the as an officer of the court must not sight be lost of.” Even he had after had time to think calmly Attorney over matter more the District original by contumaciously added to his offense refus- ing apologize any way or in atone for his behavior. scarcely duty lawyer It need it be said that is of a respectful to maintain toward the courts and courte- temporary not for ous sake attitude, incum- judicial bent of but the maintenance office, attorneys. They for two district are entitled to have one in each reply courtroom.”, Attorney people of the District “The money’s county getting are their worth from the District Attorney’s contemptuous. office.” We think that the District unjustified defending thus his office from the implied against directed criticism the court. 622 Bar importance: the American supreme of Canon

its Mr. Jus As Ethics. Professional of Code Association Appeal, 186 Pa. 270, in S couten’s said tice Mitchell discipline [on and “. self-restraint A. 481: . . orderly necessary ad part are as counsel] of they justice are to the effectiveness as ministration duty every attorney, as army.” It is vital of an uphold in honor its court, an officer tegrity. Judge’s the President in accord with not

areWe Attorney inwas that the District conclusion engaged merely Assistant were both he his because performance courtroom in the one of their duties in the providing for the work a district instead being nothing in the record to there other, in the also previously in re- instructed he had been indicate arrangement for that gard court’s business to the deliberately day refuse particular he intended to or that Brahaat’S court. It to the work assistance func- that it is the states, as is true, Beaham Attorney, but of the court to not of the District tion, duty upon arrange which devolves business, its —a always Judge, con- should who, course, President purpose regard colleagues for that his sult suggestions. plans Here does for their own deny appear intended the District Judge, during power that, President or to the such years there had been had been ever office, he two respect in that to rebuke him to ad- occasion authority. the limits of Concern- him to monish promptly, ing or to to come send his Assist- failure Judge Braham’s room when was summoned, into ant, many regard to the that there be had fact were must being disposed inof room then cases Lamorek’s per- lawyers, and other defendants, witnesses, in which he and his and which Assistant involved sons were

623 creating busily engaged, for him somewhat thus were Undoubtedly emergency it have would of an situation. explained part to judgment to have on his been better by Judge being Judge called that he was Lamoree request, he be allowed therefore, and to Braham2 mannerly on have been more to it also leave; would personally part to visited his have Braham by messengers, replies to return curt the rather than regrets expressed to have asked to have his him, How- him for under the circumstances. instructions things rather these seem his failure to do would ever, on intent to a lack of tact than a deliberate indicate Judge. authority part of the to flout the President Attor- District On the we absolve the therefore, whole, ney contempt judgment of this from a on the basis incidentally particular charge, and note we weigh imposition of did not it allow Braham the sentence. Attorney’s

As far letter of Decem- as District though disrespectful 4 ber ill-advised concerned, it court did not take it into consideration was, certainly highly insulting imposing It sentence. was express Judge Braham action “belief” that his against Attorney proceeding moti- District was by “conduct in matters” vated fact that his certain Attorney’s investigation was then under the District nothing reprehensible than indeed could be more office; charge. making an ill-founded and offensive of such “investigation” appears question It that the arose Judge Braham from fact the Vice Presi- organization purpose dent of an which was preserve public of the beautiful sec- for the some more county County and to that end to have the tions hand, might possibly been better if On the other it directly Judge Bamorepi, had communicated Braham Attorney requesting the District the release of his Assistant. condemn for a places public park; Commissioners those if such an “investigation” by District under of it. way had not been aware that he Attorney’s The District statement subsequent scarcely had not intended letter as a “threat” would an affront. explain away so inexcusable We affirm the decree of the court below insofar of court and guilty defendant adjudged denunciation of it for his imposed public sentence 1951. Defendant costs. pay November 30, Chidsey con- Mr. Justice and Mr. Justice Bell curred in the result. by

Dissenting Opinion Mr. : Justice Jones contempt than There are few offenses more odious offender all the truer when the court. is And, specifi- obligation is a member of the bar whose sworn at all himself duty conducting embraces the cally court. For the immediate fidelity times with of a committed redress efficient in- generally possess of the courts presence court, for it. No one will punish summarily herent power Fisher v. 336 U. S. that. See Pace, 155, 159, gainsay 313. as But, just Ex 128 U. S. parte Terry, also its in such is so is respect great, court’s power a eom- exercise of the power for a proper responsibility an attor- contempt by as a heavy. And, mensurately of a than that relatively culpable layman, more is ney meted out an at- equal punishment, also is so severe. more proportionately contempt, torney for him against proven stands as of guilt judgment The of highest importance, his oath. It violation be scrutinized with a case such as this therefore, not done. injustice in order That, care special court has inadvertently of this majority I fear, do. failed to my reading

From I of the record in am this case, persuaded grievously that the in mak- erred below ing contempt proceeding out of matter involved summarily adjudging respondent guilty. In my opinion, captiously acted both ill-advisedly. litigation The which he initiated is now before us for I no review. alternative have, therefore, express my differing principle but to in- views. highest importance. volved is of A conscience-free and judicially proper untrammeled bar is as essential to the functioning judicial system judges of our are them- personalities selves. The issue far transcends the parties immediately concerned. majority I Superior am accord with the of the (which original jurisdiction appeal had case) opinion judgment whose was that the contempt was error and should be reversed. The order of affirmance entered that court was not on the merely but merits in the circumstances. The pro forma majority split judg- reversal was toas whether the appellant ment should discharged be reversed and the or reversed with a remand for trial of the issue before judge. majority another Superior As the of Court agree upon was unable to the form of a reversal, order on impossible, definitive the merits was hence, the affirmance. It is clear, however, not more judges Superior than three of the of the Court could have been for affirmance while at least four were of opinion judgment contempt that the was errone- Superior ous: see Levine 170 Pa. Ct. 579, 582, Appeal, readily apparent 88 A. 2d opin- 104. it is Thus, among appellate judges ion of this State as to Judge properly premises whether acted in the Braham evenly is little better than divided. Judge The record shows that President Brai-iam, County,

the Courts Lawrence entered a rule on the 626 Levine, K. attorney

district of the Sherman County, not be he Avhy him cause should calling upon to show a ses- during for his conduct adjudged Braham’s Quarter Judge sion of Court Sessions 1951. on November (No. Court Room 1) Friday, Judge’s version, A to the according recital of facts, of specifica- in the nature was to the rule appended while both that, was gist complaint tions. in attend- were attorney the district and his assistant Room of criminal court Court ance a session upon John No. 2 before additional Honorable judge, law messenger by Braham sent word G. Judge Lamoree, a dis- him to have attorney to the requesting district Room No. 1; attend in Court trict attorney re- upon to come the district twice refused attorney from Judge Braham; that, quests by messengers Room Braham’s Court into Judge when he did come the President by “asked open later was attorney a district he had not Judge why provided and in- into a rude Room Number One he broke Court What the district of the court.” solent denunciation not specified. to have said was attorney supposed dis- answer responsive filed The district conduct on his part any contemptuous claiming busily he and his assistant were that both explaining court before of criminal at a scheduled session engaged Judge Room No. 2 Court Lamoree told the messenger that he him; Braham sent then that he was to tell each occasion come to Court Room No. and would in Court occupied en- free; upon as he was that, Room No. as soon Room a little Braham’s later, tering him de- charged who by accosted to have district failing the taxpayers frauding At- To the District room. that, in each court attorney dollar receiving were taxpayers torney replied for dollar value for the spent office. money mas said Nothing at that time about contempt been committed and the having matter was not pursued further.

Three days December later, Monday, 3rd, called the district into his chambers and there addressed him manner as follows which taken down stenographically transcribed copy given statement to the district attorney at his request:

“December 3, “Mr. good Levine, morning.

“I have to something say to you your about conduct in Court last Friday, November 1951.

“I did not to myself trust act justly I Friday. too much I hurt. had too much in- about feeling and was too justice angry. Since that time the mat- ter been has considered very from all carefully aspects.

“I taken I have counsel. come have re- great luctance to the conclusion that you must be cited for of Court. The contempt specifications been pre- by me pared typed will today. Because of your insolent talk and attitude in Court on Friday, when to come you finally deigned into Court Boom No. 1, seem that you would would admit no wrong or in your mistake treatment of the Court. You have not tendered to me one word of explanation or regret mean This apology. may you desire to con- the matter. A rule trovert to show cause why you found guilty should not be Court, way decide the appropriate issue. “I am, however, going give you one alternative. I fix a time in Court shall administer to you some and of public instruction, warning words reproof. accept If are this you willing public reproof, only willing your punishment. you If are not bewill I fix a time and decide the matter, to controvert will contempt try you for of Court. great regret. There Mr. Levine is done with “This, thought many years friend- I us what are behind thought ly I had that we were intercourse us. between personal You friends. as comrades well office, as, your good office District Attor- done work loyally supported ney. in a num- this Court You have regret great to me to a matter of of cases. It is ber charged step. I obliged am this However, to take be dignity authority preserving the Courts happen County I at the of which moment, of Lawrence Judge. President to be the dignity subject and the of this Court to

“I hate County good of the to of the officers name of one contempt proceeding indignity for of Court, done. must however, you

“Accordingly, until tomorrow I allow shall you morning are indicate whether satisfied to 9:00 you require enough me for to controvert to there is you contempt in- try you of Court. If at that time public reproof willing accept you are dicate my prefer- by fix a time. It will be I will Court, you immediately, I am but aware do it ence to Jury. your Grand concerned with are willing accept public reproof, you are not “If try- warning, a time be fixed for will instruction you ing of court. Morning, Mr. Levine.”

“Good (De- morning Shortly the next nine o’clock before Judge; 4th), delivered district cember following is letter whereof answer Braham copy: “Honorable B W. Walter rah am, County, “President Lawrence “Court House, Pennsylvania

“New Castle,

“Dear Sir: acknowledge receipt your

“This will communica- you tion dated December which directed the 3, 1951, Stenographer Court to deliver to me.

“You accuse me of talk insolent and attitude before you Friday, in court room on November 1951. 30, #1 “My feeling my first one of amazement. In all years practice always respectful I have been to all courts. say you

“You I explana- not tendered a word of regret apology. My tion or always or of conduct has Friday morning been required and on was such as no explanation apology. or At that time I informed the hearings I that was unable to conduct in court room because I morning, and had was, been all #1 busily engaged hearings with in court room #2.

“Your letter an states alternative to I can- justice myself not In submit. possibly I cannot permit public any warning reproof. instruction, regarding friendly

“Your statements the relations impress between us are insincere and do not me. I your the believe fact that conduct in certain matters investigation by my is now under office had no little your motivating present to do in action. my improper

“While conduct was not man- you should ner, desire to controvert the matter, the facts should be impartial determined in a fair and hear- ing, may where we both be examined under oath and the by determined facts the Honorable John G. Lamoree, County. the other of Lawrence

“Yery truly yours,

Sherman K. Levine” (December day 4, Later the same 1951), the rule cause attorney entered district show he should not be why adjudged guilty contempt, Fol- mentioned. already specifications appended, attorney’s of the district filing responsive lowing for matter answer to the set the down rule, 1951. a before himself on December hearing on December counsel for 17th, At the hearing filed suggestion outset district in the matter disqualified sit because of specified (1) “per- either of two reasons, does make for a judicial sonal feeling calm, cita- consideration and conclusion” because the (2) fact of issues of presence tion answer disclose determined an impartial judge.” can best be “which he declined by Judge statement Following Braham, counsel at once Respondent’s to disqualify himself. ad- disqualification their suggestion renewed “the statement and lengthy argu- ditional reason that the further indication Judge gave ment made” by just in on the case. As evi- judgment he should sit why Judge personal detachment, of his avowed dence was that the Court charge Braham retorted the and not been contemned. Quarter had he, of Sessions, out that there two judges Avere pointed Counsel then Quarter in sit to equally qualified of the both district, for therefore the case should set and that Sessions, judge. Judge additional law But, trial before the to disqualify in his refusal himself Braham persisted He called six testimony. of wit- taking and the began in direct of he interrogated in all whom chief, nesses respondent’s the cross-examined and examination, he the there including of were eleven whom witnesses, at length. cross-examined attorney Avhom district after more than five weeks January 1952, On after the alleged nine almost weeks and hearing the Braham handed down a con- lengthy, contempt, adjudication the basis self-serving troversial of he found the district three attorney guilty which defend- specific contempt” “acts as follows: “first, denunciation of the insulting contemptuous ant’s court on for fix- open President November 30 cases to the the Attor- ing contrary wishes District his reasonable to upon ney; second, failure, request, the assistance of a district provide attorney court Court Boom Number on the same day; third, letter of December 4.” writing insulting For so contempt found, sentenced one hundred for the respondent dollars use pay and the costs. He limited County specifically of contempt sentence to the first two the three acts did not sentence for above-quoted expressly impose the district letter of December 4th “because attorney’s it was not in the specifications” charged (Emphasis here assigned The reason is supplied). interesting of the fact the affirmance court of light by this solely at- judgment language by to the Braham in tributed district ivas not charged the speci- adjudication, to at the and was not hearing by any fications testified witness. acts found the court below,

Of the three overt rejects amounting two as not stated, above attorney’s the district failure (1) namely, contempt, Beaham’s Court Boom re- once to Judge go (2) district by messenger,1 sponse request released for service (the ^[1] additional At no timo law did Judge judge) in Braham communicate to his Room No. desire that a district which, Judge as the attorney Lamoree opinion be recognizes, majority the would have been of this court pursued. Braham to have better course for conclu- of December 4th. With those letter attorney’s I fully agree. sions, in the one count

That brings then, us, court this adjudication Braham’s which came attorney the district affirms, namely, in Braham’s Court he announced into Judge Room, and hear- a rude and insolent manner the presence and of the then assembled persons of the court ing al- this way the court room,- court, —-“That’s for one day.” is set ways mixing things up; everything The other only place language appeared where re- Braham’s lengthy argumentative on December 17th to the chal- sponse hearing counsel of lenge by respondent’s qualifications and determine the issue. For weeks, specific hear made ultimately exclusively now language charged, alone in the Judge’s resided undis- memory, operative, closed to anyone. did Braham hear at how well just

But, episode? And, 30th disin- time of November how did he remember said? terestedly By what was to the transcribed statement district own December 3rd, confessed to been having Monday, “to act preceding Friday justly” “too angry” conduct of alleged the district attorney respect At day. hearing two weeks later the court crier 17th) when (December asked,— visibly the Court inter- angry”, Judge “Was say “I probative would so.” value facts jected, recollection may based for a number upon impaired than a other want in the recol- veracity of reasons I condition do not attribute to Judge lector, —a Braham. it is matter every-day knowledge But, often prevent faithful anger can, does, impressions of mental recording surroundings It ac- may memory’s attendant occurrences. preclude

633 actually place curate recital of what took or even of sequence the correct of events. it is admitted all And, place around that no record was made of took what attorney when the district came to Room No. on November 30th. language

The ultimately attorney guilty uttering found the district not attorney contained his statement to the district charged specifications December 3rd; was not in the support which he filed of his citation of the district attorney contempt; and no one testified to it at hearing. although attorney And, the district liter- ally begged Judge Braham to tell him what he had said contemptuous, enlighten that was failed to following colloquy him. Judge’s taken from the extensive cross-examination of the district hearing illuminating: By Judge “Let Braham: question Monday, me ask one about December 3rd, you say you I pre- dictated this statement which you ‘may sented. Isn’t all Levine, Mr. I said, have copy ‘yes’.” say, By of that statement’? and didn’t I say Mr. “I did you, Levine: that and I also said to Judge, you say, I ‘what did have a record of I what anything, I saying any- cannot remember said, thing contemptuous you says, insolent’, ‘good get morning, argue out I don’t here, want you’.” By Judge with you, “And I asked Braham: you’re right about whether there awas record made what was said and I court, asked Mr. Binder [the reporter] whether he had record and he said By isn’t that correct?” didn’t, Mr. Levine: “That is you argue and then ‘I correct, do said, want question you, get By Judge Mr. out’.” Levine, your memory “I think, Mr. inis er- Levine, Braham: ‘get ‘good morning,’ ror on I that, out’, didn’t said, By ‘get By I?” Mr. Levine: “You also out’.” said, about you “Let me ask one question Braham: here court, Do occasion this. you say I said 4th, I December Tuesday, believe, which was in court didn’t amount —had conduct your you “That By Mr. is contempt?” amounted to Levine: not Mr. in the of myself, Judge, presence you said, what of import Mr. Klebe.” The Mr. and Powers, Binder, of of issues implications unrefuted the its foregoing, material is fact, self-evident. rely Braham at the on his did Judge hearing

Nor had said in the district memory own what He offered the Boom No. 1 on November 30th. Mr. that point; of the court testimony crier, Vance, “The adjudication in his evi- he later found and the corroborates dence of the Court Crier [Mr. Vance] made.” toas the statements President [Braham] What the court crier tes- It of the sort. nothing does questioning connection under tified to material us . . . Could tell what you was, “Q.— finally into court?” Mr. Levine came said when I he came and recall, Mr. Vance: as By “Well, as to accosted meaning Judge Court, [sic] Braham, to summons that he had failed to respond why Q. room did to in court no. 1.” “What morning appear he A. I was a what say?” repetition believe “Well, and that they busy he had told were too me, Attorney’s fault court —it wasn’t District had difference in calendar been loaded down.” The the Judge and his is respective versions witness calls for reconcilement material and, least, a for a task disinterested fact-finder. had ceased to one for

The case since sum- long acted it. mary upon (1) punishment permitted of time to period Because of the with- elapse, forfeited its to sum- right punish out the court action, The court contempt. (2) for the re- marily alleged hearing sorted to a and did rule to show cause purport summarily. By proceeding (3) rea- to be Judge’s son of the self-interest and evident bias, disqualified adjudge hearing conduct the the material issues fact as which he awas wit- (4) Finally, hearing requisites ness. lacked the process. of due

(1) justification power for the inherent punish summarily courts to committed prompt in the face of the court the need for lies effective enforcement of obedience order “essential preserve authority prevent their and to the adminis justice falling disrepute”: tration of from into Fisher supra. “summary”, v. While the Pace, term, used punishment contempt, relation to a direct type proceeding has reference to the of rather than to timing (Sacher the of the action v. United States, 9), implicit summary U. in 1,S. it is the rationale of a proceeding through it be initiated followed timely. parte supra, Terry, In Foe Mr. Justice Harlan contempts stated the rule to be that “. . . direct may, committed the face of the . . the offender court,. instantly apprehended in its be and imme discretion, diately imprisoned, without or issue, trial and without proof knowledge other than actual its of oc what (Emphasis supplied). exigencies curred . . .” of may, require the occasion in certain circumstances, adjudication punishment temporarily post the be poned (see infra). Sacher v. United the States, But, presented instant case no such situation. Supreme

In In Re 76 Cal. 18 P. Foote, 543, long ago Court of California observed that, —“Admit- ting petitioner guilty contempt, was of committed presence appears proceed- in the of the that no court, ings contempt were taken the court at the time the punish petitioner; was committed to nor were there jurisdiction days any steps until 50 taken retain adjudging guilty him of order, thereafter, imposing contempt, a fine of was made with $300, any these circumstances, of kind. Under out notice proceed against jurisdiction to think the court lost we petitioner contempt, commit and that the order and foregoing Obviously, said with was ment are void.” People summary proceeding. In v. Burt, reference to Appellate App. Court of Illinois 257 Ill. 60, 63, question the “No one would for the 2nd Division said proceeded right case as the court to have of contempt time of commission at the direct court’s contemnor’s] she still [the acts when proceedings presence, then instituted had such been action. the time of the court’s and continued until Accordingly, proceedings taken.” Neither of these authority (p. 64), the court held whatever —“But might at the time of the commis exercised court person jurisdiction of her to take acts sion said proceed of direct committed in a case jurisdiction right presence, it had no assume its judi person purpose [later] her for such without acquired. process whereby it could The mere cial brought presence into the then fact that she was did not authorize other criminal cases as on the jurisdiction. deprived sumption One cannot be of such country process liberty due without law.” v. of Sacher United U. S. States,

The case opinion majority derogate does not cites, which the foregoing principle. the from What Saeher case the progress the of a in that criminal holds order that, unduly interrupted by or interfered not trial be interposition suspension temporary for the court’s proceeding against summary a defendant his of a punishment cur- of a the direct for counsel rently by committed the trial court is warranted them, postponing summary proceeding in the for the con- tempt jury’s until the verdict the matter on trial speaking been rendered. has Mr. Justice for Jackson, majority (p. 11), the of the said hold court, —“We Eule 42 judge, [Fed. Rules Crim. Proc.] the trial allows upon presence the contempt, occurrence in his of a im- mediately summarily punish opin- it, if, delay prejudice will ion, the trial. We on hold, exigencies other if hand, believes require judgment comple- trial that he defer until its may extinguishing power.” tion he do so without judge merely In the Sacher the trial case, awaited com- pletion sentencing trial before defendants’ coun- contempts during sel committed the course of the trial. He acted at the earliest available moment, immediately upon receiving jury’s viz;., verdict in exigency the matter on trial. No such existed in the instant case. unlike all of Moreover, the con- here, tempts cited and found case Sacher were mat- undisputed ters court record.

Admittedly no record was made of what was said attorney district court room BeahamY any on November 30th. Nor did the take action punish attorney then to contempt; the district so far as the record indeed, con- discloses, word tempt was even mentioned in the court room that day. pending prevented No trial the court from act- ing adjourned day in the matter. Tlie court for the noon. And the twelve made no move to re- jurisdiction might proceed summarily tain that he against only the district later. The reason Judge gave having summarily for not acted angry” 30th was that he “too November justly couldn’t trust himself act the matter at Certainly, incapable condition the time. continuing power the the court’s into indefinite future days proceed summarily. the to Three later, attorney called district into his chambers and, then, the him his intention to for the first time made to known attorney contempt lat- the district for unless the cite voluntarily Judge in to a rebuke ter submitted attorney open to do. court the district refused Justifying the action of the court as does below, majority case on the basis of the Sacher this court, ruling mistakenly my opinion, of that extends, scope. implied beyond ef- far intended case its judge present holding can, a fect this court’s any practically time that suits his convenience at alleged up summary punishment an take whim, contempt been committed some direct said to have having contemporaneously prior time that, without and, having alleged contempt or acted to re- declared summarily jurisdiction later. tain deal with apparently recognizing (2) in- The court below, belatedly proceeding summarily, appropriateness en- specified charges respondent the rule on the tered hearing a the court nonethe- and fixed thereon. But, respondent guilty by summarily adjudged act- less upon independent ing had its recollection what own 30th Room No. 1 on with- occurred Court November testimony support language out attorney. ultimately imputed distinct Cer- hearing summary proceeding tainly, must and not contemplated. In state- been Braham’s an- on December he 3rd, ment to the district a, try you fix time and will nounced,—“I (see ante). Again, in the of court” statement state- hearing on De- he made at the outset ment which conceded the existence an issue cember 17th, admittedly, had not occurred a material fact which, required presence a hear- and which, therefore, ing for its determination. he then Thus, stated,-—-“I question summarily could not have determined that open here on I court November 30 because didn’t my messages know whether to the District necessity court room No. were delivered.” The hearing hearing for a was manifest. the But, which proved illusory. Summary the conducted to be procedure having per- not been availed it was of, not findings missible the to make from his own memory, unsupported by a,ny testimony adduced at hearing. the It is therein the that fundamental error majority of this court’s affirmance also The lies. mis- takenly upon judge, attribute to a the trial of a con- tempt, right, only summary pro- the which attends ceeding, upon to act his own recollection without tes- timony. majority opinion recognize The fails to that process holding where “the issuance of and the of hear- ings” summary is resorted pro- the incidents of a to, ceeding do not attend. It that follows, the therefore, language, for judg- which alone this court affirms the contempt, charged ment openly should have been against timely respondent proven at the hearing like other material fact.

Actually, hearing turned out to be but a medium Judge’s expounding for the prerogative as Presi- assign dent “to cases” for trial. Indeed, principal deemed be “the issue”. At the be- ginning hearing of December 17th, are said, two or three issues I invite —-“There you gentlemen’s [sic] contempt attention. is the First, open might imposed court. I sentence on day, angry. I but too Then it turns out that there larger question; involved this whether I, Presi- Judge, right dent have the to determine that there shall Quarter be a session of Sessions in this court con- room, temporaneously with a session court room No. 2. I the Court. to decide rests with power point

say, to be the principal question That seems it’s issue, The three of the first (Emphasis supplied). law” adjudication contained in the six conclusions law 23rd far afield from the January show how vide: “1. charge proceeding digressed, fix and not the has the ses- power district 2. The court and at- sions of court. district has the ultimate cases. 3. A torney power assign no more has than an additional president judge power law that he has the judge except duty assigning determining priority cases business.” As to the sentence on the imposed adjudica- respondent, tion . . sentence to demon- this is intended states, —“. strate that the court and the Attorney not District has fix the to of the and power sessions the ultimate to cases .... The District con- power assign Attorney tinues ... to demand them for if himself.” Even there a more did, appropriate way the court to and settle effect. A dignity contempt pro- one ceeding, especially summarily should conducted, not to be used a judge’s anger vent or to placate vanity ruffled over supposed invasion the preroga- tives his office. of the integrity

The proceeding as a means re- the dressing alleged contempt the impugned by ad- judication wherein Judge states, days went —“Three He by. district attorney] offered no of ex- word [the or of planation, regret The apology. President Judge could only conclude that the District had only run the on courts November 30 but intended to on them. running keep When President chal- Judge lenged this fatuous idea by his statement of December 3 the District Attorney responded with the letter [of December quoted the 21st finding fact.” 4th] Is it not a legitimate inference from the foregoing contempt proceeding resorted to the to chas- discipline any- and tise the district not for thing that he had said Court Room No. 1 on Novem- having ber 30th but for and devoted own his assist- morning disposition ant’s services of crim- inal cases before in Court Room No. 2. Lamoree (3) Because of self-interest and Braham’s personal feeling, disqualified he should have himself hearing contempt charge against for the of the the dis attorney. desirability propriety trict The of that course circumstances such as here obtained has been judicially recognized and confirmed: see Cooke v. Unit Snyder’s ed 267 U. S. States, 301 Pa. 517, 539; Case, Sheasley, A. 276, 289, Commonwealth v. 33; Superior majority 102 Pa. Ct. 391. seek distinguish just present from cases, cited, ground in those “there had acri- been that, cases, feelings judge monious between and the offender, nothing whereas here there is to indicate the existence, prior strained occurrence, relations.” By presently pertinent the time “occurrence”, December when the refused dis- viz., qualify 17th, had there been himself, two a half weeks extremely fairly “strained relations”. The record personal feeling pique part exudes on the Judge. A few should In illustrations suffice. the ad- judication the which handed after down seven intervening weeks which to “cool he off”, states, portion attorney’s reference to a of the district letter particularly objected,2— of December 4th to which he response Judge’s Tlie letter was a direct and factual to the attorney reply by demand of the district on December 3rd for a following morning expression 9 A.M. tlie and contained an of the attorney’s surprise dismay Judge’s charges district and at the and personal Judge. by a reference to the The letter was exhibited open court, elsewhere, the pub district nor was it by lished him. of com- a black book keeps attorney] district “He [the the enough against has he and he thinks plaints and defies authority and derides he flouts judge, Attorney’s version This is the District proceed. him to and adjudication queries Terror’.” Again, of ‘The attorney, well district ordinary an answers,-—-“Were ap- an that there was to learn all men, toward disposed and the plans his plans between discrepancy parent not at once have he President would Judge, an under- him to arrive out and endeavored sought did.” Attorney never the District This standing? already As appears, plain. is implication stultifying a entertaining attorney with the district charged by aggravated especially idea”. He was “fatuous it terming 4th, of December letter attorney’s district be an act it finding “insulting” correctly holds. as this certainly not, it was for disqualifying much reason bit as every There is the contempt hearing conducting from in the cases there was in the instant case as charge above-cited. it is Mr. Justice by Holmes, said

As was —“When ways to our contrary practice considered how to be accuser sole person the same thinking involve may if he be sensitive, in a matter which, judge expect power I should feeling, strong personal order case ‘to insure by limited the necessities be parte in Ex as stated presence’ decorum their said foregoing While the 19 Wall. 505.” Robinson, Newspaper Company opinion (Toledo dissenting its merit cannot 247 U. S. 402, 423), v. States, United be denied. summary proceeding, A rather than

(4) trial, the court upon entered below been having alleged respondent contempt, punishment charge against of the precise informed entitled him and to an heard in there- to be answer opportunity to. found of Instead he was that, guilty for the utterance of with which was never language and as to no one at the charged hearing. which testified The one found thing whereof he was guilty, court from now alone sustains, proceeded memory of the trial For judge. other reasons here- inbefore denied due given, respondent process of law violation of both Art. Sec. Con- I, 9, stitution of and the Pennsylvania Fourteenth Amend- ment of the Constitution the United States.

I accordingly would the judgment reverse and dis- charge respondent. The matter has gone too far and too and too long little remains to be case returned to the court for trial below before a disin- and impartial terested judge. The episode has already been magnified out of all to its proportion original sig- nificance. The controversy between and the district could no doubt have been resolved amicably long ago with a little more forebearance and cooperation of both. part Dissenting Opinion by Mb. Justice Musmanno: A simple or even a misunderstanding slight neg- lect has been fanned into a by tempers contro- legal all out of versy proportion to inci- unsubstantial gave dent which it birth.

On November President Braiiam 30, 1951, of the Lawrence Courts was County presiding Court Boom No. while was presiding Lamoree Room No. 2. In accordance with arrangements concluded a week Court Room No. prior thereto, had been designated sentencing had been made that an elec- day, preparations while 644 and the sen- assistance cases

tion public two dispute, of in disposed to be defendants were tencing two Room No. Court 1. in- in Lawrence County, the practice

It was where expeditious procedure, of orderly terests on one be imposed to number of sentences were large and the attorney for both the district particular day; in the together to attend attorney district assistant as this busy for a day, court. The routine sentencing the usual procedure to followed be, one promised be or assistant would attorney the district while the other would to the Court, one case submitting witnesses, explaining gathering the next calling case, and pro- to counsel right their to the defendants was request made, lawyers for where volunteer viding pleas signed, having guilty records, checking past indict- jury no grand In of the cases many on. and so if the defendant returned so yet ments had been jury expense the grand guilty, pleaded instance county. to the was saved and repre- desirable operation this plan

That is evidenced experience the wisdom sented on November 30, utilization fact its through cases were twenty-three Room No. 2, in Court 1951, applications of. In two addition, disposed heard and and the preliminaries entertained were parole trial at- for a murder were of a of trial day the fixing of this busi- in the operation to. Present tended three deputy city police, were two ness that morning attorneys. and eight policeman one State sheriffs, K. Sherman Levine district While the engaged thus S. were Powers, John and his assistant, about 9:30 Judge Bbai-iAM, Room No. Mr. courtroom to ask to that messenger a.m. sent 1. Mr. Levine Room No. to Court report Levine to attending that he courier, through replied, report court business No. to No. 1 would get away. Judge repeated as he soon could Bkaham request. At about 10:15 10:30 declared Lamoree a recess in 2No. and this allowed District Attor- ney proceed opportunity Upon an 1.No. arrival angry exchange immediately an there, occurred between Presiding Judge. him and the Bkaham took respond promptly Mr. failure amiss Levine’s to his umbrage and Mr. Levine took summons, because Judge according criticism, which, Braham’s attending was view, unwarranted since he was to the previously mapped duties out for him for that morn- ing. despite respective high their

However, both offices, being Attorney, susceptible and the District every- to the same emotions which influence mankind became where, offended. But on the other then, hand, they highly intelligent they since were both men, should have realized demonstration of wrath possibly already place could not undo had what taken only whip spark and could momentary into flame the away good- clash which would otherwise have died quality natured of both forbearance, of these personalities enough spare. estimable dignity Bkaham felt that the of his Court spoke sharply had been wounded and to the District Attorney. Mr. concluded Levine that the honor of position Attorney as District had been attacked and responded tartly. teapot prepared And the to re- tempest. its ceive by Attorney’s one had harmed

No been the District at the retarded did not which, arrival exceed an most, appear, Judge When Mr. Levine hour. failed to good proceeded maximum sense to at- Braham, him to the matters before tend without district at- Attorney and torney. District both the And then when remaining arrived, District the Assistant disposed of with Eoom No. was in Court business extravagance of the dispatch. judicial the sheer Thus, counter-charges, charges, criminations thunderous lightening flash followed recriminations which gem-clear in acerbity made men is these two between 1 for Eoom No. in Court all the business fact that (12:30 p.m.) by day noontime, finished the entire was one No. with Eoom and all the business from slight exception, noon. Even terminated damaged, point no one was of view, Bbaham-’s tardy presenting him- arguendo, Mr. Levine was if, being 1. to No. self after summoned attending gainsaid Levine that Mr. It cannot peo- important office which functions of the supposed ple him when had elected from place. been absent Had Mr. Levine took places passing idly un- the time the courthouse, private resentment affairs, or immersed known, part been warranted. would have a, policeman quelling fighting a blaze, fireman But operating post, delivering doctor a mailman a a riot, jury judge charging have patient, could not a or a on a meritoriously attending allotted task to his more been Judge Braham sent the Mr. than Levine was him. court crier to summon could been that Mr. Levine if assume Even we episode, circumspections in the entire and more tactful contempt be- of court committed I fail to he see how Judge everything drop in not instanter cause he did Judge hurry court. to court to Braham^s Lamobbe’s duty Judge who Mr. also owed Levine Lamoree, morning doing too. of work in the midstream Judge reasoning, According Judge Bbaham-’s justified holding Mr. in have been Lamobee would if had of court deserted contempt Levine Attorney a District Room 2. But is it fair that No. his duties should be thrown attending conscientiously Charybdis? Scylla between to note that important Judge

It Lamoeee, of dis- attorney and a former district jurist veteran before hearing tinguished testified reputation, for the district Bkaham that it Judge practice in attorney and assistant district He testi- day. court on sentence together sentencing coopera- further had been always fied that Mr. Levine manner and con- Court and that tive with the had been “deferential always Mr. Levine duct, to the Court.” respect

At contempt hearing Decem- opening ber “The said: whole 17, 1951, ques- Braham tion has the and the to deter- is, power authority who mine many how the Court rooms this County, Quarter sessions of the of court may Sessions be heard at the time. same Does the have the authority to settle or does the Attorney?” District that,

Did need to conduct a order to hearing question answer answers itself? Of is the Court course, has and the power to determine all authority matters Quarter to the conduct of the Court pertaining Ses- sions. All president judge Braham, Lawrence needed to do was to County, issue a Court order on the subject that would have settled the question definitively conclusively. The Court may confer with the naturally District reach- conclusion in its matters ing but it kind, should not and cannot divide authority responsibility.

At another place Braham said hearing Judge that whole issue revolved around this “and point, did not certainly require of It question

it is a law.” of to decide that testimony ques- 197 printed pages tion of law. Judge that it agrees

The with Majority Opinion says District was of Attorney guilty pub- Braham that the “That’s lic insult the Court statement: making way always mixing things up; court, one But record is bar- day.” is set everything And the of such language. transcript ren as to any of support Judge testimony equally empty that “broke Attorney statement the District Braham’s into a rude and insolent denunciation the Court.” Braham called behalf of his Judge six witnesses why to show Attorney rule District cause Court. one of Not not be held should con- or described the quoted these witnesses words No to Mr. duct ascribed Levine. Braham One Mr. Levine rude insolent. one said that was Clifford L. Vance who witnesses was Judge’s Coun- crier the Courts been a Court Lawrence has the one carried the for sixteen He is who ty years. Mr. Levine Mr. when message present Levine that Room No. 1. He testified reported spoke Mr. who appeared, Levine Braham that burden the Court’s remarks was first, “for his delinquency” account Mr. Levine should request responding Braham. tax- Mr. “the according Vance, Judge said, the Dis- because both defrauded” being were payers Attorney District were and the Assistant trict Room No. 2. in Court in his Mr. replied Levine

To these strictures value received were payers getting “the tax judgment in this explained Mr. Vance dollar.” —dollar for Mr. were Levine both colloquy “visibly angry.” meager towering pyramid

Upon episode a this unnecessary litigation unpleasant wholly has been Opinion Majority The that de- constructed. assumes spite contrary rec- direct evidence to the in the the Judge Bkaiiam’s affirmed be- conclusions must be ord, “findings.” “findings” not made cause of The were day alleged the do the so therefore occurrence, spontaneity support further- not have them, and, they testimony no from the have substantiation more, presented episode the time the exhaus- whole tively from treated the stand. witness Schlesinger case 367 Pa. de- Petition, by recently point. cided a is decision in In Attorney Schlesinger that case Trial asked belonged Party if it that he was true to the Communist organization overthrowing other committed to government by United States force vio- interrogation (done lence. This in the absence jury, parties witnesses) was necessitated because questioning jurors on their voir dire Schlesinger inquired they had had as whether been “alleged political influenced associations” attorney, obviously press referring those associations regarding alleged notices Communistic affiliations. publicly It Congressional had been asserted before a committee that this had said: “While we strong Party a City, Communist I New York don’t wage see can how we successful revolution unless we party Pittsburgh.” build the Judge questioned Schlesinger

When the Trial about reputed Schlesinger these Communistic activities, Judge, launched into verbal denunciation of the us- ing contemptuous language engaging contemp- findings tuous The Trial conduct. made of fact Attorney Schlesinger on the actions and enumerated findings Attorney Schlesinger those as follows: That contemptuous disorderly, and contuma- in a “behaved to the made false statements that he cious manner; that he on the Court; that he turned his back Court; n contemptuously not listen to he declared would respect to the Court; he would show Court; that he tried to the Court while leave having per- charged speaking; animosity him and when and toward sonal venom upon for a statement reasons such called to submit present any 70 min- that he was reasons: refused to a for the trial and then falsehood utes late stated interrupted constantly the Court that he his tardiness; speaking; to an- refused that he the Court was questions giving refusal, for his reasons without swer, fidelity very to the Court of core his to the which went Court.” of the an officer of office as and to his oath against contempt proceedings Schles while Latex1, pending; deputy on him inger sheriff served were issuing as which from the Court order Schlesinger contempt looked had occurred. serted street. of the into the refuse and the document threw contempt to the are disobedience The of essentials authority opposing or despising openly its or court or resisting evading may dignity. or of It consist disorderly indulging be process, or insolent court’s presence of the language court, the actual or havior reproachful or or language scornful, using is which authority the court or the of to lessen the tends Dangel, by Na (Contempt M. Edward respect for it. p. 158.) Lawyers’ manual, tional Pennsylvania P. L. 784, §23, ofAct 1836, contempts “The follows: classifies §2041, P.S. conxixionwealth of this courts power the several of summary punishments inflict attachments issue follow- to the restricted contempts court shall of of the misconduct the official To ing I. to-wit: cases, respectively; To officers courts II. disobedience such jurors neglect parties, or or officers, witnesses process III. to the of the To the lawful mis- court; presence any person in behavior the court, thereby obstructing justice.” administration

Attorney Schlesinger’s contempt May act of on 24, presence op- occurred of the Court. His probrious language, walking refusal out, his charges “entrapment,” listen, false took all etc., place eye judge. in the courtroom under the of the “ presence When the committed in upon of the and the court acts court, view with- punishment, out trial and inflicts the there no will be charge, plea, no no issue and no and the record trial; punishment that shows the will also show offence, party the fact guilty that the court had found the contempt; appeal to this court fact found by the court every below would be taken as true, intendment would be made favor of the action of (Ex Terry, 308.) court.’” Parte ibid,

Applying proof these standards of to the in facts Schlesinger Judge lawyer the Trial case, found the guilty contempt of of court and ordered him committed Allegheny County to the purge Jail until he should contempt. appealed himself of the He to this Court only and this Court not severely exonerated him but Judge, criticized the declaring Trial Judge that the had right no lawyer, to spite ask the of the state of the lawyer if record, organiza- was a member of tion overthrowing government committed to force and violence. This Court said further Schlesinger justified treating was Judge the Trial in the manner in which he did and that he was not guilty any contempt throwing a Court order into the street since the Court order was ineffec- tive. declared, Majority

In bar, the case at have any contempt Sherman K. did not commit Levine when report Judge he failed but committed Braham, contempt he broke “into a rude when and insolent de- nothing nunciation of the court.” Since there support finding the record to that Levine broke into a rude and insolent denunciation, assumed only happening accepted can as true it because finding by Judge Braham. made a But was this Court finding ignored Bchlesinger of the Trial Schlesinger the Trial said that case when had interrupted on the had turned his back the Court Court, speaking, the Court he when stated would not any respect to the and so on. Court, show majority here found that free The have Levine was respond contempt for failure to Braham’s guilty contempt him but found when summons, already spoke in the manner to the discussed. Bchlesinger from the does that differ case? There, How lawyer contempt no held that the committed this Court Judge’s questions he refused answer which put point, came at that where Levine was when he him, Judge Braham’s court. But whereas this Court into Schlesinger guilty found that Court, presence acting contemptuously in guilty speaking here that Levine was has found though contemptuously the remarks he made even were only predicated upon his failure to arrive in Court this Court Boom No. 2 on holds does not time, contempt. constitute pos- Bchlesinger case and the Levine case cannot Supreme together.

sibly Either the Court erred stand Bchlesinger it erred here. case or has in the lawyer a flouts of Court If it is not away authority Court to its face and casts of the bearing I fail the Court’s seal, as rubbish documents con- can Mr. conduct be considered how Levine’s see temptuous. acted Mr. 1951, November Levine

If, strange Judge Braham it manner said he is did, guilty find him of con- did not Braham dignity tempt very at that If the cloak of moment. rent conduct that rude and insolent, mending accomplished A should been at once. have reprimand from the bench been the cata- would have lytic, bringing order out of calm out of tur- disorder, respect disrespect. out of assumed bulence, explained bring that he could not himself to Braham doing angry. because he was too He could not master the situation could him- because he not master possible delay but it is seif, that the increased rather Certainly pic- than decreased the choler. it threw ture out of focus and it could also ruffled the pool memory. day certainly

No one becomes bad in a an hour or minute. himself said that “good Mr. had Levine done work his office as Dis- Attorney.” adjudication trict In his in this case he years stated: “The District in his two of of- performed fice has much meritorious service.” We have spoke seen how also well of Mr. Levine. Lamorre If Mr. public an Levine, therefore, was efficient serv- good reputable citizen attorney during ant, and a all years his suggested the bar and no one has to the contrary, improbable suddenly that he could de- contemptuous very cide to become of Court in which living. past performance he must earn On his good patience part conduct, little on the CoujT would have been in order and this unfortunate long, controversy drawn-out would never have taken place. and that matter to consider one other

There is but by Mr. Levine letter is the written Braham. but letter was ill-advised, that this There no doubt Judge Braham that the letter which it does seem advisability either. the acme to Mr. Levine was wrote Morning” and ended began “Good a cheerful It with Morning,” but be- equally “Good cheerful an Mornings,” there sandwiched were “Good those tween morning K. many for Sherman a bad omens County, Attorney of Lawrence the District Levine, Pennsylvania. majority sustained

Although Court has contempt findings, time for there is still I believe Morning” part on “Good genuine, cheerful imposed remitting Mr. the fine Judge Levine.

Case Details

Case Name: Levine Contempt Case

Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date Published: Feb 14, 1953

Citation: 95 A.2d 222

Docket Number: Appeal, 176

Court Abbreviation: Pa.