*1 416 evi- a general that the The verdict here verdict to assume Plaintiff seems interrogatories clearly no establishes submitted question were
dence on this any therefore, negligent, We, issue fact. do- that the defendant against know jury cause of decedent’s whether the found negligence was the its au- em- plaintiff one on the plaintiff issue of the decedent’s death. The cites Executor, Tiller, ployment defendant, issue or on the thority question, on this Co., causing de- negligence U.S. 54. of defendant’s Line 318 Atlantic R. v. Coast death, or these issues. 610, A.L.R. cedent’s on both of L.Ed. 967. 63 S.Ct. 143 444, 87 plain- against de- A granted finding court on either issue the trial that case sustain verdict on tiff would have been sufficientto motion for a fendant’s directed general the evidence dis- verdict that the defendant grounds: (a) and, guilty. negligence, (b) sufficient Since there was evidence no actionable closed plaintiff on finding against to sustain a speculative the death was that the cause of of the issues, conjectural. Supreme judgment either these be, is, affirmed. court District reversing judgment of the trial Court must said, page page 451: U.S. S.Ct. 63 “ * * * negligence questions of should proper charge from the court
under jury for their determina-
submitted * * * We think that the tion. part railroad negligence on the of the employee part should have
and on the of the jury.” to the been submitted al. et v. SACHER UNITED STATES case the trial court did submit the In our 21537. Docket No. negligence jury under question of Appeals no States Court of plaintiff made United instructions to which Circuit. Second things, objection. jury, among other from the “If believe instructed: Argued Feb. evidence, under the of the preponderance April 5, 1950. Court, plaintiff Decided that the of t'he instructions negligence charges proved has complaint, you find should alleged her guilty.” defendant jury instructed the also The court ordinary care on the
what constituted contributory negligence. question of evi considering all of the
After opinion jury
dence, that the arewe inferred found and reasonably have
might was not caused Miles’ death part the defendant. on the
negligence conclusion that neither It follows permitted court nor this court is
the trial finding jury. As said
to disturb Co., Ry. & v. Peoria P. U. in Tennant 409, 412, L.Ed. 520: 64 S.Ct.
U.S. reweigh the evi free to are not “Courts merely jury verdict and set aside dence drawn different could
because judges or because or conclusions inferences reasonable.” more other results
feel
417 Wolf, Popper, Wolf, Ross & New York n City; defendants-appellants for L. Paul Ross, City; New York Dickerson, Earl B. 111.; Chicago, Katz, Charles Los Angeles, J. Cal.; O’Brien, Detroit, Mich., Patrick H. counsel; McBride, Thomas D. Phila- Pa., delphia, appellant of counsel for Mc- Kenny, Cal., Angeles, Cabe. Robert W. Los Forer, Joseph C., Washington, D. and Ber- Jaffe, York, Y., nard New on the brief. N. Irving Saypol, FI. United Attor- States ney, Gordon, City (Frank New York H. Shapiro, Irving Wallace, S. and Edward C. Special General, Assistants to Attorney Bailey, Attorney, Depart- Lawrence K. Justice, Washington, C., ment of D. counsel), America, for States United plaintiff-appellee.
Briefs were filed support cwriie appellants: amici Silberstein, Washington, C., Robert D. J. Lawyers National for Guild. attorneys Various on their own behalf. Standard, City L. New William York Rogge, C., (O. Washington, D. coun- John sel), various individuals. Neuburger, A. City, Samuel New York certain trade unions. Cammcr, & New York City, Witt fof organizations. labor certain HAND, completed March N. March AUGUSTUS Before prosecu- Judges. Various witnesses for FRANK, Circuit CLARK and tion between March were called HAND, judge. Circuit N. AUGUSTUS *3 May when rested after the Government Williamson, Dennis, B. Eugene called The having thirteen witnesses. John Ben- Thompson, Stachel, May G. 23 begun Robert case the was on defense Jacob jamin Winston, Henry thirty-five Davis, Jr., concluded, hearing after and John J. (cid:127) Green, Upon Potash, Carl Gates, witnesses, September Gilbert Irving 23. defense on Hall, charged Winter, by counsel, indicted were the court and Gus summation District rendered a jury on October who United States con- York for guilty against New the indicted District of verdict of all Southern organize as the Communist spiring defendants. (1) society teach- a Party United States of the entry Upon verdict on October of the de- and advocating the overthrow ing and court, I turn to “Now announced: Govern- United States struction of business,” proceeded and some unfinished violence, (2) to and and by force ment portion contempt certificate a to read of of advocate the overthrow and teach orders, 42(a) under Rule of the and made and force Government Procedure, United States Rules 18 Federal Criminal of 3 and 5 of contrary to violence, Sections appellants U.S.C.A., convicting the of known 28, 1940,commonly Act of contempts imposing of court and criminal June (Now U.S.C.A. § Act. as the Smith imposed sentence sentence. These orders defend- found the jury indicted 2385.) A Crockett, imprisonment on of four months charged. The offenses guilty Isserman, McCabe, thirty days ants on and and however, is not from appeal, present Sacher, and Den- six months on Gladstein Smith under the conviction of judgment nis. certificate orders were filed adjudging Sach- but from orders Act immediately clerk after the oral an- with the Isserman, McCabe, Crockett, Gladstein, er, Each order that the nouncement. recited contemptuous con- Dennis, guilty appellant guilty was the con- named during the attorneys acting as while duct specified against certifi- tempts in the him the main pendency of trial. cate, imposed was and sentence for each the merits as to is not before here us contempt with direction that the sen- but as under indictment convictions concurrently.” be After the tences “served Sach- the conduct of impropriety of made, ap- were each certificate and orders McCabe, Crockett, Gladstein, Isserman er, pellant Isserman ob- addressed court. adjudica- Dennis, resulted which findings jected certificate on contempt. tion “wholly ground unwarranted anything has occurred which began January The trial trial”; and, respect this course of jury delayed be- selection but himself, were a reflection “but at- challenge the in- behalf of cause of prejudice mosphere which this of bias sys- entire jury' defendants dicted with which court shown this entire has Dis- in the Southern tem administered day.” from the trial was attended first He challenge This went York. New trict of argued that this “an effort also March 1949. It January 17 to on from members of the bar in intimidate their court finally only when the terminated duty represent clients bounden their * * * conclusion, and filed for its a limit fixed ability the best of He ”. challenge.1 In rejecting opinion by making a vacate ended motion to by the court that opinion it was held certificate, denied. system in' the administered Southern recognized power dis- “the fair and made without Sacher rests District was summarily,” to act groups. in the Court of individuals or Aft- added crimination lawyers counsel, given op- should be “an the that the motions defense er certain portunity to be heard before selecting they are commenced on found process F.Supp. Foster, D.C., 1. U. v. S. To the court pres- this that it was
guilty sentenced.” committed in the actual you, Mr. replied: sayme ence “Let contempt court. The order of contempt adjudica- these Sacher: as to shall the facts signed recite and shall be all tions, notice to let them be and entered of record. your ex- tempted to who follow Disposition upon “(b) Notice and Hear- judicial power in the ample there is A ing. contempt pro- criminal except as system under the United States (a) vided in subdivision this rule shall the United the laws of Constitution and prosecuted on notice. The notice shall dignity protect maintain the States to place hearing, state the time and allow- *4 * * *
of the court ing a preparation reasonable time Thereupon, Gladstein that he had stated defense, and shall state the essential contempt had committed no of court and constituting contempt facts the criminal rights no more than defend the of done charged and describe it as such. The no- made a similar state- his clients. Crockett given orally by tice shall be judge in Finally, ment, as McCabe. Dennis did presence open in court of the defend- verdict, is that: “This trial said or, application ant of the United States product illegitimate of an evil and an of attorney attorney appointed or by an * * * bipartisan conspiracy of men purpose, by the court for that an order to Rights destroy want Bill of who to show or an cause order of arrest. de- adjudg- peace, and think that by fendant is entitled to a trial in * * * keeping in ment of counsel any in an Congress case which act of so police with the sinister and state character provides. He is entitled to admission to trial.” of this provided in bail these rules. If the copy A of certificate which the contempt charged disrespect involves to or judge 42(a) is filed under Rule forth set judge, judge criticism of is dis- appendix opinion. as an to this qualified presiding at the trial or preparing filing Contempt In hearing except with the defendant’s con- Certificate, sentences, imposing Upon a guilt sent. verdict or finding of purported summary the court act under to shall the court enter an fixing order powers by conferred 18 401 U.S.C.A. punishment.” §§ 2402. power discussing punish to with 42 Rule of the Federal Rules of Crim- hearing contempts notice or out committed provides: inal Procedure presence court, in of Har Justice Contempt “Rule 42. Criminal parte Ex Terry, lan said 128 U.S. “ * * * Disposition. “(a) Summary A crimi- 306, 32 405: S.Ct. L.Ed. may contempt punished summarily nal be facts recited in Sep the order of that he saw or if the certifies heard 3d, showing tember a clear case of con constituting contempt the conduct tempt committed in the face of the circuit 401. Power eourt “§ “This section shall not be construed to court of the United States shall “A contempts relate committed in the punish by power imprison- fine or presence court, or so near thereto ment, discretion, contempt at such its jus- obstruct the administration authority, other, its and none as—(cid:127) contempts tice, nor in dis- committed any “(1) person Misbehavior in its any writ, process, lawful obedience presence near or so thereto as to ob- rule, decree, order, or command entered justice; administration struct brought any prose- or suit action “(2) Misbehavior of of its officers of, of, the name or on cuted in behalf transactions; in their official States, same, United but and all other “(3) Disobedience or resistance to its contempt specifically cases of em- writ, process, order, rule, decree, lawful punished in this section braced or command.” prevailing usages conformity to the provides contempts that certain § law.” prosecuted jury trial, shall concludes: authority, destroy deal Neith- discussing its with after first. court, which tended to them, however, persuasive. and er methods,
and, embarrass seems by violent business, petitioner its obstruct first argument support regu- entitled, right, absolute either to pre- upon the largely contention based contempt, or to lar trial of certificate, liminary remarks in the intention of the court’s notice rule the trial which the “Before said: * * * him, opportunity against proceed or to progressed very I was far, charges con- answer to the make formal reluctantly forced the conclusion It commitment. tained in the order of I am the acts and to which statements actions, all general rule in undoubtedly a agree- refer about to were the result of an private parties or prosecuted whether defendants, ment between deliberat- these is, in civil government, ly calculating entered into in a cold —that cases, aof ‘a sentence criminal manner, things —that do and these with- against pronounced party court delay purpose (1) causing of: such oppor- giving him *5 hearing him or out impossible confusion as to make it and head'd, de- judicial a is not tunity to trial; provoking go (2) with the inci- on is not en- rights, his and of termination they intended result dents which any in other tribunal.’ respect titled to mistrial; impairing my in a (3) and health 277, 274, McVeigh, 93 U.S. v. Windsor the trial continue.” so that could not rule is another there But L.Ed. judge pre The also said his antiquity, and uni- immemorial of almost liminary remarks that he would have over equally acknowledged, which versally contemptuous looked the conduct of coun liberty, preser- to the and personal vital to sel, repri merely would have at or most society, because organized vation of them, appear had manded conduct depend the recognition and enforcement its ed to be the heat result of the contro of authority tribunals of the and existence zeal in the of a client versy or defense rights of the protect established contempt. ap rather than deliberate The life, liberty, prop- citizen, or whether pellants argue judge punished that illegal by the assailed erty, whether and they engaged them because were he found by the lawless- or government acts conspiracy though ain he not have could re- It has of individuals. or violence ness making joint witnessed the a actual contempts which, be- class of lation agreement. appellants’ ifBut conduct court, im- face of a ing committed contemptu described the Certificate was destroy impair au- or its purpose to ply a ous and obstructive and contu involved its transaction thority, to obstruct trial, macious acts at the those were acts intimidate those business, or insult judge’s sight committed within the and administering duty with the charged hearing. judge’s they The conclusion that Chief the remarks of also law.” See Jus- agreement the result meant were of an no States, 267 v. in Cooke United Taft tice deliberate, more than that and 767, 390, 534, 517, 45 S.Ct. 69 L.Ed. U.S. quite unimportant it was whether he be effect. to similar prior that a been conspiracy lieved had en judge appellants contend Indeed, into. he tered never said that such punish the defendants power to no had conspiracy had been He saw formed. punished because conduct summarily appellants deliberately heard the de presence trial, the actual orders, “committed disregarding laying in. pun- court,” and also because of accusing wrongdoing him cor immediately enough This ruption. fol- wilful imposed did show ishment nothing As the obstruction contemptuous trial. There acts. low the indicating his certificate to be met the in that there were objection, it seems first many por- any other than acts those which he findings in saw the certificate judge be- and heard had determined his conclu record that tions regarded appellants’ Even if we shall sions. The second fore him. agreement made asked as the an for a 90 on the day conduct result continuance courtroom, ground police unim- outside the view that armed power to portant newspaper not limit his House pre- and would accounts would contempt. impose punishment for summary They vent fair trial. also asked for punishment larger more be revised His could no courtroom than the one which larger view than could a because he court was sitting held so as to admit a public. ordinary crime be reversed sentence On the denial of these motions the that a de- judge January felt said on began because the court consideration an unde- had himself such challenge fendant shown defendants’ to the panel citizen in transactions jury system sirable other as adminis- imposition unusually severe merit the tered in the Southern District of New length challenge treatment. His reason for of York—a entertained al- validity though affect its the sentence would not a similar one had been made ignored appeal. The should November 12 and withdrawn on November Burke, 334 preceding. situation Townsend v. U.S. 16 then Counsel contended 68 S.Ct. 92 L.Ed. the challenge any not be should heard by appeared quite different, for it there judge of the Southern District of New impose York, the fact which caused Judge and in event that Medina long sentence was his erroneous informa- they might should not sit because desire previous- tion that the defendant been him call as a stated witness. charges, ly convicted on certain and that a participated that he had not in the local *6 by im- jury sentence affected that mistake was system, replied to which Sacher posed upon a defendant who did not have participated, even if he had not a “lack participation the benefit of counsel. might legally, despite of its paradoxical aspect, regarded partici- appears to find- record the justify * * * pation sep- ”.3 After counsel had Specification ings in’ the of Certificate arately refused to state ex- whether appellants “joined wilful, that the ain de- pected judge call witness, to the as a he liberate, delay and effort to and concreted ruled that if called he would * * * refuse to tes- pur- obstruct the trial for the tify. Such appellants conduct by pose causing of such disorder con- and dilatory They pro- and obstructive. then prevent by fusion as would a verdict ceeded petit jury to call a member of the jury indictment; by on the issues raised the panel for the January 1949 Term named purpose for the of bringing and Allen asked as- and him was “the judicial system and the entire Federal sessed valuation of the home” in he which general disrepute. into discredit and ” * * * lived. The that the witness ruled It likewise find- bears out the might proper- be asked whether he owned ings contemptuous of obstructive con- and ty required in excess qual- of amount duct with which charg- the defendants are service, ify for jury but ed in could not be specifi- subdivisions a. m. of asked in detail of what ample property cation. There con- seems to have been his protracted reason for arguments the court’s by conclusion that the sisted. After Judge attacks on judg- Sacher, Knox and other Isserman, McCabe original' and es of the Southern to, District ruling and adhered precluded which jury system, Department, juror’s details economic status. Justice police, newspapers and the President this, spite In of Isserman and con- Sacher of the United States were with launched interrogate tinued the witness as to de- purpose jury similar to divert the holdings, his property income, tails of issues, the real and to convert the case into other information such as had been ex- Government, a trial of the rather than previous the court in rulings, cluded the indicted defendants. many quite and irrelevant matters. These When the indictment was questions many moved for continued pages over of January trial on prior rulings defense counsel the record. The objec- Challenge p. Transcript,
3. 1356.
422 protect utes what I have observed entirely sufficient to tions were here, sneer- conduct me' before indicted defendants counsel rights which the ing, of one snickering, indications repeated questions obvious appeal, and had on now, go another, up, ‘Get turn obstructive appear have involved this, appel- next, keep thing going,’ and so spite of dilatory In tactics. on.” who were called more witnesses three lants panel jury and sub- petit members of spite this, counsel continued ques- detailed jected kind of them the regardless arguments objections case excluded in the had been tions ruling one court an Flanagan, Upon calling of Allen. all. On Feb- inure the benefit of petit jury panel, the member of the a fifth ruary 25, so over- had been no more hear that he would judge ruled talk that he ruled whelmed direct panel some until members of argument on mo- would receive no further was furnished. .proof discrimination objections, except re- where he tions fol- arguments then repetitious Long and quested it, and the defendants so directed against rulings protesting lowed challenge, proof jury limit their on the pages many the rec- covering court and begin that the trial could March counsel Thereupon, defendants’ ord. challenges rejected After were Wilkerson, who testified called one 7, a begun the actual trial on March supervised preparation he had adjournment days new motion disproportion- to show purporting statistics Moreover, was made and denied. Glad- discriminatory selection of the ate and attempted challenge array again stein District. jurors in Southern petit jurors dismiss the and to question was asked February panels of March and March and to repetitious excluded, and con- argue evidence and about these introduce ruling Is- against the arguments certed Thereafter, repetitious there matters. Gladstein, Sacher, McCabe.4 serman, objections arguments on *7 day, after a further during the same Later appellants of of the allowance what claimed judge, by the question been excluded had proper peremptory of were the number by made were of like arguments character challenges, protests ex- and of the because Isserman, McCabe, and Crockett.5 Sacher jurors by of dire amination on the voir many other these and has to read One by at- rather than counsel. Further court judge’s rulings against the arguments panel, Upon petit jury ir- tacks appel- that the conduct convinced relevant allusions to the so-called “Jim wilfully obstruc- lants concerted Metropolitan In- policy Crow” of the Life February 8, court length At on tive. Stuyvesant Company surance in its Town “ * * * There has been remarked: development, made, were and there were wilful, concerted effort here deliberate arguments by irrelevant Dennis to the proceedings. going And I am delay the situation, situation, Chinese the Greek prevent any further I can do to to see what Israel, Japanese German and mo- State * * * At I couldn’t think first delay. nopolies, Repeti- and the Marshall Plan. began then it dawn on possible, Dennis, were arguments by tious made maybe going on. that what was me that Sacher, Isserman, McCabe, Gladstein, and times but it two three mentioned or And deposition taking about Crockett finally it effect. And it did not have Foster, to whom the case had been sev- fact, my come to mind such has ered. I so find.” by motions, accompanied There were repetitious argument, lengthy and to strike finding court said: “The Later the practically all testimony only out of the day was based the other made Government witness Budenz first and the appear in the min- upon occurrences Transcript Challenge Appendix, Specification 2839. 6. VI. 4. See Challenge Transcript 7. Specification Appendix, 5. See VU. during his
exhibits examina- defendants introduced Hall and Winston were like- April 4, persisted in tion. On wise Gladstein remanded for the of the trial. balance Dennis, pressing two, of The latter line cross-examination as well as acted in out, obstreperous judge contemptuous Budenz which had and an ruled manner. arguments accompanied made when told to In insistent the turbulent scene questions. day, rulings court, appel- turn other On same none of the repetiti- attempted after had promptly Isserman embarked lants restore order. Indeed, argument guise stating Gladstein, ous under by judge asked grounds objection, his the court ruled prudent did not think it seats, that neither Government nor defense could the defendants in- to resume argue grounds or without state sisted court first rule permission of the court. question put frivolous claim that persons Gates about names of who were 25, April On judge when the limited of a members committee involved a viola- by the introduction a book Karl Marx tion of rights.9 constitutional This court “Value, por- Price and Profit” to such since proper, has held that the relevant, might rep- tions as be shown to be the refusal to answer was a objections by etitious made Glad- were contempt, Judge and has affirmed Medina’s stein, Sacher, Dennis, judge until the remanding Winston, orders Hall and temporarily forced to leave the bench punishing Gates.10 stop by order to the refusal Dennis to obey argument. his orders to abstain August during On the direct examina- Lightfoot Isserman, by Mrs. tion she was May On announced questions by asked some the court which pages out already of 8860 of the record objected constantly Gladstein to for no made, pages represented at least 1554 ar- questions Finally, valid reasons. gument by counsel, defense without count- abandoned because of sheer obstruction ing testimony or what had been said whereupon Dennis ended the incident attorneys Government, for the moving alleged for a mistrial because persistent himself. argu- addition to hostile attitude of the court witness. contrary ment—often to direct command frequent court—the record shows Throughout the remainder of the provoking objections statements and by trial, persistent there were obstructive appellants concerning trivial matters. colloquies, objections, arguments, and many May said that he had groundless charges against the court things “observed a number of here which *8 appellants judicial the misconduct. But impressed as having me been done Judge opinion since Clark is of the solely delay, purposes perhaps for to specifications stand, none the should and drag * * period; out this for an indefinite case Frank Judge has concluded that the first Now, example, I *. for have ob- stand, specification should the orders exhibits, extremely served that an long be affirmed will the basis of certain period passing is taken for the around of specifications. later exhibits, the over turning them and over Sacher around, passing 20 them and and minutes or by; half go hour it seems to me that findings additional con- 8 perhaps expeditious.” canwe be a bit more temptuous by acts and misconduct Sacher specifications in are contained the later one of the indicted defend- June certificate: Gates, judge’s ants, custody was remanded to the refusing ques- for to answer a the marshal Specification IT, charged In he that if stand, witness tion indicted questions the court was not to allow as Transcript, p. Trial 5827. 8. certiorari denied ex U. S. rel. Hall Mulcahy, 90; v. 338 U.S. 70 S.Ct. Specification Appendix, XXVII. 9. See Gates, Cir., States United v. 176 F.2d Hall, Cir., 176 F.2d United States v. 78. Allen, petit juror by saying: see, only “I Gordon
the economic status of ment hearing; just a and may speak.” “this is no hearing Nicodemus prevent pretense designed sham argument XIX, Specification after In will the establishment of those facts Gladstein support and Dennis in oí the in- system we prove precisely that the book, in troduction evidence of an entire * * say it “* is.” impertinently Sacher remarked: V, “This is Specification stopped In he said: we are being proving procedure. We al- Alice in Wonderland truth.”
ways and then get sentence first Specification XXV, indulged In in he * * * Is evidence it because the trial. argument judge contrary to the with the devastating Govern- becoming for the too rulings. latter’s circumscribed? must now be ment that we XXVII, Specification Sacher, In instead * * * ft trying quell uproar Gates VI, charged judge he Specification In court, joined been remanded because rulings making certain with making the absurd that Gates contention large number presence court of disobey the court invok- entitled reporters. newspaper ing rights under the Fifth Amendment per- VII, indulged in he Specification In Constitution. argument should sistent XXVIII, Specification again was In he permit general testi- change ruling and reprimanded argument shouting. inhabit- qualification mony as to the Specification XXIX, claimed that In he Congressional District 18th ants being un- the witness Green was “crucified in addition to This he did jury service. necessarily interrogations.” with Isserman, effect to the same argument XXX, interjected Specification he In and Crockett. McCabe respect cross-examination of de- VIII, sug- insolently Specification he In Green, though represent he fendant did gov- favoring was. gested latter, quote “I like to the court would latter ad- by giving the counsel ” ernment picking.’ say: very ‘This is small called of when he notice vance XXXI, Specification he accused the In respect proof in proceed with his upon to * * * remarks “[unjustified] court of system. jury challenge to the against prejudice designed to XII, a sarcastic Specification he made In defendants.” ac- Judge Knox which was reference XXXIII, Specification virtually In he ac- somewhat similar reference companied aby per- unjust ruling of an cused court Judge Medina. Neither by Isserman arguing. sisted anything calculated to do remark XXXVI, Specification persisted he In confuse, the issues. annoy the court charged argument and in effect the court XIV, charged he Specification In Government counsel. favoring with remark, provocative making a court XXXVII, Specification charged the defending “lawyers who are added *9 prejudice jury seeking court with the liberty should not for their clients their against defense counsel. dogs though they were in the as treated * * * ”. XXXIX, courtroom impertinent- Specification In he day, your “Will come a ly there said: XVI, that: “No Specification he said In Honor, you will hear us?” change bench” would the observations when the procedure. form And Specifications his respect XV In tell what “you never can that added court XVIII, printed Appendix, which are replied: “With happen,” Sacher will charge to be that gist of each seems the suppose up that is true.” there Honor attempting to mislead the court. Sacher charged sufficiently not think we do clear and he This XVII, Specification In we, therefore, treat- hold that convictions and unfair preferential with court objec- XVIII, persistent arguments made as stein Specifications XV under tions, and after court had be re- overruled Specification should well as under witness to answer them and instructed the versed, convictions should his other but that questions speech, he had and not make a as be affirmed. done, gratuitous objected “to the Court’s January that contention Sacher’s improper characterization of the wit- any exculpated him from judge testimony, ness’ make a as effort to said that when he charge misconduct * * * speech good spoken “in taste” far had thus Sacher XIII, persisted sup- Specification arguing In he in in would, apply only to at most port questions II, which had been ruled out him vulnerable and leaves court, many and, acts later after directions specification in of his view desist, prior represent transac- “They latter to said: do of misconduct which colored truth and intend to show that do.” tions. Gladstein XVIII, argued In pres- Gladstein findings, in addition jury ence court tell should I, made as Specification were those of Nicodemus, them that the witness whose Gladstein: being credibility attacked de- fense, guilty he because had IV, had to challenge during In costs, pay although the court had held that charged prejudg- with system, he the court payment of costs did affect a final ment; later, when invited to submit judgment guilty. law, Nicodemus was not said he would a memorandum of possibility of having “if there XX, offensively charged In he the judge respected.” Up- effect of authorities [the] anticipated objections sustaining with to his criticizing imper- him for his on the court’s questions objections before the stated. insinuations, added: “It isn’t half tinent he charge in effect It was bias. your Honor, saying, I felt like as a XXIII, again charged In he the court you said.” result of what impropriety partiality. with VI, contemptuously persisted In he XXIV, persisted argument, In he argument. burdensome though been it had forbidden. VIII, challenge, during In the jury charged angrily judge XXVI, with again effect In when the court stated keeping evidence because he out didn’t like arguments that it did not desire to hear way colleagues Gladstein and his requested them, he said that “the unless it behaving. been making plain Court is now that it no lon- ger hear wishes to evidence from the de- X, In the judge he asked to reconsider fendants, began and that to be true when respect to a ruling document which began put in defense its case.” evidence, he had declined to admit in “upon pretext said: a con- XXVII, In when there was disorder in * * * document, pre- fidential sentencing of Gates the courtroom * * * showing venting me from questions directed, answer refusal to corruption system here in so far as suggested “pru- that it would they placed charge of it a man who was i’fthe dent defendants resumed seats.” corporations, the director a dozen proceeded argue Gladstein Rut * * * spite reprimand ”. of a right disobey Gates had court’s his direction to desist from immunity because of direction under the *10 arguing, Gladstein continued. Amendment to Fifth the Constitution. XI, In court after the had excluded XXXI, during the In cross-examination Register Gladstein’s offer of “Poor’s of the by the Government witness Yolanda Directors,” thought he said: “I when Isserman, Hall, Gladstein, Dennis, and yoit would, Judge.” heard facts the in succession interrupted, argued, Sacher XTI, In during the by objections. cross-examination and made vexatious When the the Government of the Darr, witness them, Glad- judge tried curb moved for prej- mistrial, XXI, claimed the court was suggested and In he that the court had improperly knowledge
udiced. obtained of the Gov- evidence, ernment’s saying: don’t think “I XXXII, during In the examination direct customary it is for the such ICourt to show Isserman, Geraldyne by Lightfoot he * * * familiarity proof with that the by and Gladstein obstructive tactics suc- ; might present.” Government preventing answering ceeded her from XXII, improperly In charged he the question by charged the court. Gladstein court with prejudicial rulings bias. and witness, and bullying court with XXVII, In objections disorder in the courtroom made in which unreasonable accompanying the sentence of joined. charged Gates and finally Dennis Gladstein “misconduct,” remand of Winston and and Hall was the court with way by Crockett, no joined relieved who attorney Government stated that there attorneys witness, badgering imper- other and indicted been no of the defend- rising ants in courtroom, made “willing, 'he was tinently remarked that and attempt no permit, poll have his and will have a taken clients Winter Honor Stachel people resume their jury seats. members of people press in attendance XXIX, In in the course of the examina- * * * XXXII, set forth in ”. The acts Gates, offensively tion of he and irrele- outrageous prevented an clearly were vantly presence jury: said in the orderly trial. “May the record is the fifth show day imprisonment of the in jail.” witness’ XXXIV, judge after In ruled on a XXXVII, persisted objections In he Thomp- question put the defense witness spite previous rulings judge proceeded against son, argue Gladstein and warnings argument de- was not par- charged with ruling sired. an on the he had made tiality ground government when the XXXVIII, inconsistent decision In he obstructed the trial being argument witness Budnenz was examined. continuing chargingthe judge having with any grounds mind “closed XXXV, during direct examination In I might state.” offensively He also re- Strong, the court sustained the witness judge’s marked that the reading mistake in question Gladstein and objection to a too much of an exhibit to the argument; where- that it wanted no stated “seemingly unintentional.” Gladstein, improper in an aside to the All of these convictions of Crockett are “Well, that is secret.” jury, no said: supported by the record and should be af- pf these convictions Gladstein All firmed. facts and should be supported were McCabe affirmed. following findings, in addition to specification, the first those of were made Crockett as to McCabe: findings,. in addition to VI, protest by In after court re- specification, were first made those of the arguments iterated and discussions of the to Crockett: by Gladstein, Sacher, rulings latter’s impertinently III, charged he In McCabe, made the sug- McCabe offensive favoring the United States At- judge with judge’s gestion that observation that attorneys representing torney over provoke were him trying counsel indicted defendants. “may wasting very time well be ad- dressed to someone outside of this court- VII, had warned de- after In * * * room, ”. that he wished more counsel no fendants’ VII, argu- Isserman, company Crockett continued the argument, —in Isserman, already and Crockett—he made McCabe continued Sacher to ar- ments Sacher, was clear gue until warned that was act- after it the court desired no request. argument. further defiance of the court’s *11 ing sarcastically rights order of un- VIII, remarked that the court because his In he con- der has been the First and Fifth Amendments. way “the this case certainly hoped I which I ducted one XXXI, In when the court admonished Is- justice.” in court of see never argue, objected serman not to he pick- IX, charged judge holding with of the action court that his was de- In he statements the liberate and moved ing 11:20 and 3:20 for for mistrial. wasting time be-
latter that counsel The cross-examination of the witness were deadlines cause 3:20 11:30 interrupted constantly Yolanda Hall was Later,11 newspapers. when the court objections arguments Isserman, him and said that warned about his conduct Gladstein, Sacher, and Dennis. it would not be dealt with then but would XXXII, In during the examination of later, reiterated that earlier he Lightfoot Isserman, the witness the lat- charge rulings for news- were made question that a ter said court made paper deadlines “was accurate.” “impossible,”and, sup- the defense with the XXVII, upon the sentence In of Gates port Gladstein, blocking succeededin Hall, remand of he Winston inquiry. any steps help failed to take restore or- All of these convictions as to Isserman der in the courtroom. supported by are record should be All these convictions as to- McCabe affirmed. supported by are record and should be Dennis affirmed. following findings, in addition to Isserman specification, those of the first were made following findings, in addition to as to Dennis: specification, those the first were made XIX, persisted In he argument con- as to Isserman: trary warning to the instructions and VI, judge during In after the the chal- In court. connection the found lenge system had an sustained necessary adjourn for five minutes to questions regarding low-rent prevent Dennis from flout his continuing to housing projects and had told Isserman that direction. arguments, he did not wish hear Isser- XXII, In charged Dennis the court with man, notwithstanding, proceeded argue “outrageous an arbitrary ruling” be- Gladstein, conjunction Sacher, with cause the defendants were granted McCabe. adjournment after the Government had VII, persisted argument, In Isserman completed case, its and characterized one charged with misconstruing the court rulings court’s as a “mockery of he had statement that made and with im- justice” and prejudgment as a of the case. characterizing his properly conduct. He also made other violent characteriza- XII, interjected In he the sarcastic com- of the judge’s tions action. membership ment that the of the witness XXXI, he In asked whether “the ruling Democracy Darr in American Youth for and remarks of the court are directed to the credibility no more Darr’s bearing defendants and prejudice counsel as to our fact that the than the was “in the jury?” case before the He further stated Register.” Social “for all intents and purposes the de- XXVII, charged he was making In deprived fendants of counsel and de- quell attempt disorder no when Gates prived is set forth in the Sixth refusing sentenced answer Amendment Constitution.” and Winston and Hall were re- conduct. XL, for turbulent charged manded Instead of the court with an “act this, furthered the futile argu- Isserman gross discrimination and an affront to Gates was entitled to disobey Negro people” ment the the because the judge had p. Transcript,
11. Trial
428
up rather of their
contempt.
validity
sum
acts of
Davis to
refused to allow
such an
attorney.12
parte
open
left
in Ex
than the latter’s
Terry,
page 314,
77,
429
contempt
speedy
think
is
that he meant
vindication
immediately
after
the
tence
practicable
circumstances,
as was
before us.
under the
This is the
committed.
steps
required
and could not have
which
remarks of
only
the
Not
did
Justice
up
would
have broken
the trial
frustrat
from 247
Holmes,
quoted
we have
which
powers
ed the
his
to vindicate
565,
263
423,
U.S.
page
at
38 S.Ct.
U.S.
open
authority
in
after it had
flouted
been
to situa-
280,
107, relate
page
44 S.Ct.
at
court.
language
Nor
think that the
do we
here, but his
not before us
tions
Oliver,
of
Supreme
the
in In re
333
Court
statute
language of the
statement
that the
682,
499, 92
U.S.
68 S.Ct.
L.Ed.
“present protection
points ony to the
contemplates
appel
the limitation which
and con-
from actual interference”
lants’ counsel contend for. There is no
“where
jurisdiction
its
to cases
fines
punish summarily
doubt
power
the
* *
*
necessary
personal
action
hearing
without
should be
with
exercised
his work” can
go
him to
on with
enable
great circumspection.
way
areWe
no
literally
every case
hardly
applied
be
lax,
importunate
indicating that
exer
prevent
summary punishment can
no
since
ought
cise of
it
sanctioned. We
already completed inas-
obstructive
acts
merely
appel
'the
acts of these
hold
For
as it
follow them.
ex-
much
must
lants
obstructive
intolerably
were
to an
ample,
Terry
the misconduct
case
the
orderly
summary punish
trial and merited
complete
particular case
the
was
was
ment,
dealing
the
mode
with
over,
punishment was
summary
so that
by
justified
adopted
them
was
un
court
go
“to
necessary
the court
to enable
der
circumstances.
imposed.
work, yet
with” its
The
quoted
Holmes were
conclusion
have
remarks
The
we
reached
Justice
salutary
overruling
appellants’
evidently
give
warning
objec
second
intended to
unnecessary
tion is borne out
against
exercise
Ninth
decision
Circuit,15
punish
contempt and
several decisions in
power to
for
did
contemplate
present,
summary punishment
state
like
where
courts where
a case
contempt
necessary
imposed
either
under
simi
have been
statutes
would
disorderly
attempts
governing
lar to
case
abandon all
curb
the one
at bar.
very
They
general
contemptuous
conduct or
serious-
are all to the
effect that the
progress
punishment
ly to interfere
of the trial.
should
acts
follow the
of con
adopted
tempt
Judge Medina
promptitude,
course
with reasonable
but that
appellants
degree
promptitude depends
were mis-
warned
conducting
peril.
particular
case,
It
themselves at
facts
each
and that the
prevent
obstruction,
punishment
immediately
further
tended
follow
need not
orders
imposition
also demonstrated
its
endanger
if such an
would
warnings
by punishing
case,
not in
vain
defense in a criminal
or interfere
offenders,
after
verdict
record- with its conduct. We cite these decisions
ed,
Any
flouting
authority.
margin,16
quote
its
other
and in addition
contemptuous
opinion
Supreme
treatment
action
Court of Min
17
self-defeating.
clearly
have
nesota
been
states
reason
applicable
involving
ing
to cases
the sum
opinion
of Chief
Taft
Justice
mary disposition
contempts
committed
States,
517,
Cooke v.
267
45
United
U.S.
open
court:
390,
767,
S.Ct.
69 L.Ed.
should be read in
light
punish
of the facts of the case before
for a direct con-
“Jurisdiction
spoke,
page 536,
tempt
267
him.
at
contempt
When
U.S.
attaches
instant the
395,
penal committed,
page
45 S.Ct. at
of “immediate
long
and continues
least so
dignity
court”,
necessary
vindication of the
we
afford the court a rea-
402;
Willis,
Maury,
15. In
In
re
F.
205
626.
206 N.W.
re
94 Wash.
180,
between the Court and the United States Attorney; objecting Insisted d. one after an- Court, rulings despite other to of the trial, ruling day repeated on the first of the thereafter, objections times all several exceptions and would inure to benefit of disclaimed; each of their unless clients making long, repetitious, e. Persisted in arguments, objections, and unsubstantial protests, working shifts, accom- and panied shouting, sneering, and snicker- ing; Urged badger f. another on to one
Court; g. Repeatedly charges against made I. bias, prejudice, corruption, Court of and Sacher, Messrs. entire trial During ; partiality McCabe, Crockett, Gladstein, and Isser counsellors-at-law, and man, attorneys and disrespectful, h. Made succession of 1949, Dennis, attorney insolent, after March sarcastic comments and re- wilful, deliberate, se, Court; in a pro joined to the marks delay and obstruct the effort concerted Disregarded repeatedly flagrant- i. al., Foster v. et C States trial of United ly argue the orders of the not to Court causing purpose such dis 128-87, permission without and to desist from fur- prevent as would confusion order and comment; argument or ther by the the issues raised jury on verdict aby Disregarded j. rulings on the admissi- purpose bring for the indictment; and place so as bility of evidence to endeavor to ju entire Federal and the the Court ing jury by leading questions before discredit dis general into system dicial excluded; subject matter endeavoring to divert atten repute, by questions asking Persisted in jury from k. on ex- the serious of the Court tion matters, subject knowing conspira of a cluded ob- their clients charge against sustained, would be jections and advocate the endeavor to teach cy in substance carefully partiality- proceedings during the picture of bias create a false and what Court; going whole time this part on the me, Honor, surprises frankly, your prejudice of racial l. the Court Accused McGohey will frequency with which Mr. foundation; without objection sus- make an Court will ain themselves Generally m. conducted Mc- objection asking tain the without endeavor in an provocative most manner objection Gohey to state the reasons for undignified intemperate or call forth some giving opportunity suggest us an then could response from why the Court the reasons upon as demonstration be relied should be overruled.” the trial. over preside unfitness to Court’s IV II. February 3, the chal- On during hearing 1949, during the January lenge jury system, defense counsel jury sys- challenge to on defendants’ *16 discussion, in engaged in a and the Court petit Allen, tem, member of Herbert a Gladstein, in an course of which Mr. Court, of January Term panel jury for the manner, “Now (Ch.Tr. 2461) : insolent said support witness as the first was called everybody, think, who although one would direct exam- During this challenge. and, prejudge did not the matter here—” Gladstein, Mr. Allen was ination Mr. interruption, (Ch.Tr. continued after valuation of for the assessed asked 2463): objection question an was home, which to Thereafter, argument lengthy Now, sustained. Court’s “Mr. Gladstein: before the by Messrs. Glad- Court directed to the interruption point was out that I was about to Sacher, which stein, McCabe, Isserman and important question of what is here is the Mr. brought to a conclusion
was upon the ob- your Honor’s determinations .Sa- 1390) (Ch.Tr. : shouting at Court raised, cher jections and McGohey Mr. has clear; thing your “Well, make one let me suggesting it— without him sometimes even going you to con- Honor said Yes, right maybe I have a if you I now what hearing, a and tell duct bench a comment from the once to make prevent us you to is to going are do you to probably wrong It seems while. a proving questions and asking these commonly your colleagues, but it is hearing; it fact, hearing is no this then done, I have no whatever of intention pretense designed to just sham and a refraining. those establishment prevent the of facts referring I wansn’t “Mr. Gladstein: system pre- prove which will comments, your because Honor’s say it is what we cisely always referring welcome. was de- rulings that make adverse III. United States At- even before the fendants 2, 1949, during the chal February On objec- an torney opens to make his mouth Rosten, system, Harry Re jury lenge to the happened.” tion. That has Times, Manager York for The New search colloquy, during which After further questioned by Isserman being Mr. Mr. a memorandum from Court invited 20, already in Challenge Exhibit No. about respect admissibility Gladstein Objection made to the line evidence. proof, Mr. Gladstein continued his certain by Mr. Isser question being conducted integrity, as on the Court’s fol- reflection argument, the man, 2466-2467): (Ch.Tr. lows Thereupon objection. Mr. sustained the easy an Gladstein: And is not argued and Mr. Sacher further Gladstein present the authorities and research They task to matter. were followed you on admis- Crockett, argue but limited them to who did not o sibility this kind of which is quoted data ob- below t the insinuation himself by sampling your methods. But tained if “I comment 2302): have (Ch.Tr. .one Honor, any possibility having there is very make, your listened Honor. if Honor, instance, your respected submit authorities those effect your time ruling I don’t want to take more of reconsideration obtaining nothing you; doing we are will certain- influence taken, I Honor has your King I don’t want like Yankee in to be memoran- get that I can ly whatever do * * * Arthur’s Court the Court. law to dum of respect all authori- try to “The Court: VI. ties, and those controlling that are those 4, 1949, during February On the chal- my duty as try to do persuasive. that are system lenge to course very nice of 1 do think Judge. the direct examination of Mar- the witness insinuation, but I put in that little Isserman, by Mr. cantonio the witness was pass will it. part. we good And so take it in long asked to how low-rent state certain It isn’t half Very well. “Mr. Gladstein: housing projects had in existence. been Honor, saying, I felt like what The Court told sustained said. result Isserman that it hear not wish to did Well, I well believe can “The Court: However, argument from him. Mr. Isser- that.” proceeded argue joined man V. Gladstein, by Messrs. Sacher and McCabe. Repeatedly, interrupted the Court counsel afternoon, hearing after the same stating argu- that it did not desire to hear (Ch.Tr. argument Mr. Gladstein lengthy Nevertheless, ment. counsel continued *17 2483-2489), Court Govern- sustained (See 2548). Ch.Tr. The Court then prof- evidence objection to ment certain 2544— proceed to directed counsel with the inter- Aft- Wilkerson. through the witness fered rogation (Ch.Tr. 2548). witness request, granted er Sacher’s a recess at Mr. direction, the teeth of the Mr. Gladstein argued for and Mr. Mr. Crockett Sacher (Ch.Tr. 2548-2549), continued “ as follows: (Ch.Tr. 2490- ruling of the reconsideration * * * your permit Honor since won’t Continuing attack defense 2501). authorities, me I re- to refer to then completely ig- upon the court counsel practical suggestion, to a fer and that is if had heard Court fact that the noring the arguing of consuming instead as to time ruling, length at before Gladstein Mr. right whether or not we have make to loudly complained (Ch.Tr. Mr. Sacher simple statement to for the record as repeat, an Alice Won- “I this is 2494) : say per- what witness would if were always get procedure. the sen- derland We mitted to answer the to which Now, we and then trial. if tence first Attorney objected, the United States has procedure get ordinary back just to would which has been sustained —if afterwards, with trial first and sentence * * * doing simply that we al- instead real ”. might be a little bit more normal, to lowed follow usual routine Sacher to “com- Court Mr. directed procedure place ju- takes even before argument pletely refrain further ” ** * ries (Ch.Tr. 2494). line” Notwith- along this speaking Mr. Sacher then commenced Court, standing the direction that it and the stated did desire not shortly attack to his Sacher returned (Ch.Tr. 254-9). hear at that time to him 2500) (Ch.Tr. Court, follows “Is : Despite this, (Ch. Mr. Sacher continued becoming it is too because the evidence 2549-2550), follows: Tr. that we devastating for Government my you This “But have characterized conduct be circumscribed? must now counsel, trial stopped as that of and I this as well wish Why are we at telling stuff. record, definitely deny say I point proceed to to and wish to we show when Party your Honor is guide vote is the aware fact that Republican that the newspapers many jurors here, are 40 or there and on to the determination how Congressman district, impartial threshold Marcan- from a come testimony you have taken the tonio’s occasion Constitution and selection say his testimony being at require stake in intro- statute ? That is what pertinent experienced thing. duced are an purpose dragging for the de- You lawyer laying trial; than to do say— I know better that, Now, you lawyers have been say I that ? Court: Did weeks, provoke here for three perhaps Well, very you imply that Sacher: “Mr. me—I don’t be. what the reason know broadly. your deny it Honor wishes to If I you keep up But do some know that I I glad shall he But the denial. n day, perhaps now, hereafter, there perhaps got your impression very distinctly that Now, please will reckoning. be a time of just on the Honor’s observation was made don’t do that. Congressman’s threshold of testi- “Mr. Isserman: And like I would now mony designed and that it was to color the object your Honor’s characterization it, given impression effect and my comment. believe, Honor, your I that that is do “Now, appropriate. making— the statement that I was trying “The Court: If are Well, charge “The Court: me Sacher, you provoke me, wasting with deliberately something misconstruing your time.” regard I impertinence. that as Shortly thereafter, Mr. McCabe con- say Isserman: did not it was de- (Ch. with the statement cluded liberate, your Honor. But said it seemed “Yes, : 2554) that it seems to Tr. But, event, me to be that. your me that that is what is in Honor’s I saying was this: said if this were mind, may very that also well be ad- á community proof, small the method of to some one outside of this court- dressed cases, as indicated would be to call record, room, and I think that the if re- persons directly involved. Your Honor authority may viewed some other indi- conditionally has thus far ruled degree cate unusual of tolerance calling Honor would not allow the of those annoying tactics, particularly face of which persons who give the direct evi- guilty of.” think we are don’t dence on their status.”
VIL Mr. Isserman argument his continued and again interrupted the Court to remind day, while Mar- On the same the witness Mr. previous Isserman of the Court’s di- being cantonio was examined Mr. still rection (Ch.Tr. as 2623-2624): follows Isserman, if witness he had asked persons residing many Now, in his Con- “The found Court: Mr. Isserman— who him gressional District were known to Now, “Mr. Isserman: why— reason average intelligence. The Court “The say Court: Let me something to objection. However, an sustained Mr. Is- you. every judicial proceeding that I am proceeded argue serman matter. with, familiar I and have a pretty large sought Finally, argu- the Court to close experience bar, at the when the Court in- ment, directing Isserman to Mr. take his dicated that it didn’t want argu- more (Ch.Tr. 2621). Nevertheless, exception point ment lawyer on a quietly desisted. persisted (Ch.Tr. 2621-2622), Isserman Mr. except If he chose to he noted excep- as follows: tion and went on to Here, something else. I “Mr. Isserman: was middle perhaps in an endeavor out, to wear me your my objection interrupted Honor gradually you which it is doing, keep that a statement that I misconstrue made. up, you make argument argu- said, conditionally— I . just ments as doing now. And “The Court: I wish would say, before, I as I have said that that that, that I do to misconstrue. my judgment proper is not the conduct of “Mr. Isserman: It seems to me to have attorney. extremely an It is wearing on misconstrued. been the Court a trial of this sup- kind. I impertinent “The Court: That pose up seems will bringing wind me down. Isserman, thing. hope im- I seems an it won’t. I have the strength lenge system, jury I tell directed hope I But go on, I shall. proof. proceed the Government with its you stop it. — vociferously ob- Counsel for defendants take ex- like to I would “Mr. Isserman: jected and, argument, Mr. the course of an im- ception remark your Honor’s manner, Sacher, (Ch. in an insolent said my conduct. proper characterization say, 3420) “Now, I in all candor Tr. : must my my complete state “I like to — your Honor, very difficult for us that it is may. if I objection for record to believe that the defense counsel among ahead going insist on “The You caught Attorney un- United States intend to do, as do again, all I can request or the direction which awares it, advise rumpus is to about make proceed to him to with his made Court then, you insist desist; again please— proof half’s an hour notice —”. on con- take the on, why, you must going proceeded object, counsel Other they may be. sequences, whatever way that the led the Court remark my objec- May state Isserman: hearing such as he nev- was conducted was the record? tion for jus- thought see in a court of er he would may not.” “The Court: You Thereupon, 3433). Mr. Mc- (Ch. tice Tr. interroga- (Ch. tone Tr. proceeding in a said Instead of Cabe sarcastic McCabe, Sacher witness, Messrs. 3433): tion of argument. on the carried and Crockett Honor, agree, your on that “I last will argument McCabe told Mr. The Court point; way case has been con- then 2625), and unnecessary (Ch. Tr. certainly hoped one which ducted is shouting, offered his Sacher, angrily justice. in a would never see court (Ch. Tr. 2626- Court “observation” to way Court: You mean the it has thereupon up took Crockett 2627). Mr. me, been conducted I take it. desist until argument and failed to his insistence him that Court warned exactly.” “Mr. McCabe: I mean that di- of the Court’s in defiance going on was (Ch. 3434): “I stated Tr. 2632). Tr. (Ch. rection every vitupera- subjected to been kind you might just tell tion here well VIII. going me am to be reversed and all how challenge commenced Jan- that. It remains to be seen what will be February 11th the Court uary courts, by higher telling done me the defendants that counsel for determined my judg- isn’t to affect going about *19 put to in evi- four weeks taken almost had my trying I am best here rule ment. to adduced in no have been which could dence impartially, protect justly, to rule to days 3291) Tr. (Ch. four more than three or despite rights of these defendants con- accordingly Court that concluded and counsel, and T duct of their shall continue in a “delib- engaged defense counsel do that.” to mockery make a here to erate effort McCabe followed with the Mr. this state- 3290). At the close of justice” (Ch. Tr. 3434) simply : “I rise (Ch. say Tr. to ment day, the de- that Court court on directed your except —to to Honor’s characteriza- a statement counsel submit show- fense to anything attorneys tion that the defendants’ proposed prove in they to ing sabotage. Sabotage done is have there has challenge they and how remainder been, say I I think it but as has been a (Ch. prove 3344-3345). it Tr. proposed to system justice sabotage of the entire February was submitted The statement court, say I that we are this 3346) insuf- found (Ch. Tr. 14th interested ones who in that.” seem to 3415). juncture, At (Ch. ficient Tr. this jumped Gladstein Thereupon, to in the exercise its discretion his and, angrily advancing proof, refused to feet order of hear toward as to bench, truculent testimony a manner (Ch. that time behalf of he said at further 3434-3435): with their Tr. in connection chal- defendants may prior stated “Well, ruling Honor this: Court adhered its your now I ask argument it did not to hear further that rec- desire your really Honor mean does (Ch. 4559). refused to Tr. Mr. Gladstein protection of it is ord indicate that a shall Court, your heed the as follows direction rights of these defendants (Ch. 4560-4562): Tr. piece of say I evi- when offer Honor to dence, Gladstein, be mate- that would 'Mr. Honor, But, your “Mr. Gladstein: relevant, rial, that would that would be pretext that docu- this is a confidential case, I not your go- am help prove but ment, about, asking the one that I am I you put because it in evidence to let ing witness, you one that was written this your colleague way you don’t like preventing showing are me without from behaving? lawyers have been any question proof corrup- final system far tion here so say I that? “The Court: Did placed who charge it a man effect, yes, because “Mr. Gladstein: corporations, director dozen who— you rejected absolutely have you have “The Court: Gladstein— introducing evidence-—”. me prevented finish, May Judge I ? Gladstein: “Mr. IX. your I language consider the defend- February during offensive and fitting an officer of system, Mr. Mc- challenge ants’ speak you this court use when a rul- argument diverted' course Cabe pretext, ing the Court as done under 4116-4117): (Ch. remark Tr. you language and use such other used your Honor that you like to “I there. You must that know are do- do, that con- really you believe ing something I come to should at inter- by your you Honor repetition I direct to desist. stant regular as the are almost as vals Honor, Gladstein: Your I “Mr. ask nothing Big Ben —and mean tolling of you applies consider the law eruption of allusion —or personal, question because—r Park, Yellowstone Faithful out in Old you “The Court: I heard what said. peri- it is—these come stated wherever “Mr. Gladstein: Do refuse to have pick 11.20 3.20 can I think ods. you? memorandum of law submitted that we come statements these “The Court: And consider lan- your nothing; doing we are delaying; guage offensive. record, nothing seen Honor has you— “Mr. Gladstein: Do want— say, don’t know, you “The Court: And know point of those What is the “The Court: is, pleasing of course times? particular times, those of the people. some think is dead- 11.30 McCabe: Well, “Mr. Gladstein: that is not —I have Honor, papers, afternoon for the line anything— said never the deadline —”. 3.20 is around I think “Well, 4117): (Ch. Tr. But is an The Court “The Court: additional *20 of, I why and must something you I had no idea not do it. reason should is mind ingenious to got have you say any- “Mr. have never said Gladstein: for said such something was suppose purposes thing pleasing anyone you ought to be ashamed I think purpose. purpose trying put here but for the to Tr. 6980. See also yourself.” your persuade and to in evidence Honor requires. I think the law what do to X. Well, you not going “The Court: to the chal- February during On me, you might provoke stop so as well do- Mr. Gladstein jury system, to lenge that. ing ruling its reconsider the Court to asked I want to make Gladstein: an offer “Mr. which he had respect to a document which, concerning this letter ac- proof The of evidence. into sought to have admitted
437 im- incompetent, irrelevant and question statement, this is in the witness’ to cording objec- which, Court overruled material. and readily available building tion, argue to Mr. Gladstein continued but Duncan, called it was way, Mr. by the (Ch. 4781). you— Tr. on was served subpoena that in the finished, As soon as Mr. Gladstein Mr. that so? isn’t interjected and Mr. Isserman sar- Sacher make not you I direct comments, 4781) (Ch. castic as follows Tr. : evident sufficiently already is It this one. what paper is May respectfully “Mr. in the case Sacher: repeti- are, mere it your membership claims about Amer- your Honor that up your use only serve Democracy it will tion of ican Youth for has no more ad- employ better can you bearing credibility time that of this witness vantage. Judge than fact that Knox is director corporations biggest of two of rec- right. Let All “Mr. Gladstein: country.” May, written a letter that it show ord witness, present Duncan, the by Mr. Or that Honor is Isserman: show further the record Register.” and let in the Social letter for the letter for that called again The Court stated that it overruled response, it was a in which questionnaire objection and directed the witness to response— was a answer the and said to the witness Gladstein, you Now, Mr. “The Court: he should bear mind that he should you have told what I done again speech amake as he had moment done a .to do. ago. Thereupon (Ch. Mr. Gladstein said 4782) Tr. : “Let my the record show ob- the record want “Mr. Gladstein: jection gratuitous to the Court’s im- subpoena served I had the (cid:127)show proper characterization of the witness’ tes- that? it now Can show this witness. timony, speech as an effort to make a —”. I understand what “The Court: acts of these want, accumulation XIII. something rulings my disobedience hope you, and concerns April 4, the course of the any more.” keep at won’t Budeuz, witness cross-examination objected Attorney the United States to a XI. Gladstein, questioning line of Mr. who afternoon, shortly after same On the was directed the Court to turn to some- incident, Gladstein offered 2296). foregoing thing (Tr. per- else Mr. Gladstein Reg- 1949edition “Poor’s arguing the matter in evidence sisted in with the Court. pages. Directors,” consisting again ister of The Court directed Mr. Gladstein hear Mr. that it would subject stated The Court turn to another and told him that relevancy question of the on the lawyer persists in arguing Gladstein when a about statement hearing a of the exhibit. After thing the same inference is that Gladstein, the Court sustained trying lawyer impres- to leave the Thereupon Mr. the book. sion that the facts recited in ask- questions impertinent Gladstein, sarcastic in a rep- lawyer ed oui actually ruled 4590) thought “t manner, (Ch. Tr. : said thereupon truth. resent the Mr. Gladstein would, you heard the facts pres- made the statement in the Judge.” (Tr. 2297): “They ence do represent the truth
XII. intend to show put do. way Let me it this —” *21 1, 1949, in the course of the March On the witness cross-examination John XIV. Darr, Jr., the witness was asked Whittier April during the cross-ex- long how he had counsel Government Budenz, witness Louis P. amination American Youth for been a member transpired (Tr. 2479-2480): objected to the ..Democracy. Mr. Gladstein “Q. you say certainly it Can’t whether XV. August or not? April During a session of the court McGohey: object. I “Mr. 1949,while a was un- Government witness examination,
“The Overruled. der counsel Court: direct Government invited the Court’s attention to the fact puzzling “It is as to what difference me Gerson, regularly a Mr. who Simon speech he made the it made as to what date table, been seated at defense counsel’s but— papers representatives circulating certain to witness under- When this “Mr. Sacher: courtroom, whereupon press takes— place 2750- following colloquy (Tr. took al- argue. don’t Please I “The Court: 2751): question. low the passing “Mr. I Mr. see Gerson Gordon: your makes When Honor “Mr. Sacher: section, papers press your out some your says provocative Honor remark Honor. you it makes— don’t know what difference absolutely “Mr. Now that is Sacher: your I strike out remark “The Court: wrong, your Honor. I asked Mr. Gerson provocative I may making a remark. about speak good enough to be someone provocative I remark and did not make This is me. another instance surveil- response you your insolent. Now consider lance. please stop am not in habit that. I Well, pass- “The if is Court: Mr. Gerson trying I making provocative remarks. am ing press courtroom,, out releases in the justice. my to administer to do best please stop it. trying I am And de- “Mr. Sacher: Well, “Mr. press- there are no Sacher: my clients. fend releases. not have insolence “The Court: will I All right. “The Then Court: that settles- from the bar. it, that the end of it. my trying do best I am “Mr. Sacher: uncomfortable,, “Mr. But it Sacher: clients. my defend Honor, your under Can’t observation. please refrain from You' “The Court: freely we move in the courtroom without ques- and frame next further 'Comment having our upon? movements remarked respect from the having used to I am tion. Well, you “The Court: haven’t been bar. freely courtroom, moving Mr. Sach- your Hon- wish to Sacher: I “Mr. er, eyes my then and ears have been de- you any want dis- I don’t to show or (Mr. me. ceiving paper Gordon hands respect. the Court.) your question. You reframe “The Court: this, “The let Court: Now us see what you know it. And “Mr. Sacher: paper produces. (After is that Mr. Gordon Oh, yes, I sure know it. Why, “The Court: examining) press it ais release —do- ing just do. said being was not done- recipro- And think “Mr. Sacher: “Mr. I asked Mr. Sacher: Gordon—Mr.. lawyers objection. I think who are de- cal to see someone for Gerson me the out- liberty clients should fending side, for their and it had nothing press- do with though dogs not be treated releases, your Honor. either. courtroom Well, “The my Court: I have in a. hand That is an insolent remark press appears which it just release out, the statement and strike himby deny. handed out and which dog. I don’t been treated like see get don’t want to into any col- “Now speak way. you dare how here just lateral controversies we will yourself, please'ask you can control “If rest with this I do let it direction: not want in¡ question. next press releases handed around here anything trying, your the courtroom am Honor.” kind.. Sacher: *22 place Honor, here. propaganda “Mr. have con- Now this isn’t Your I Sacher: people sistently where been observa- justice This in this form and no is a court change no more that be tions from the that form. trial and I direct that bench will done.” “The can tell what never Court: You. was retained press The release which happen. will pictures of the defend- Court bears up Honor there With Sacher: captioned as ants follows: suppose true. possibly get might control Twelve “Trial of the my shall.” courtroom. think Broadway 1601-02- —Room 13, N.Y.— New York XVII. 5-2010 Walker 22, 1949, April in the course On of the Relations Office Public examination the witness direct Charles Release For ¡Court Nicodemus, objec- sustained 7, April 1949” question made tion Mr. Gladstein to counsel. Mr. asked Government Sacher the Clerk of the Court record's then arose asked the Court admonish 17, 1949, January on Messrs. reflect questions Government counsel not to ask Isserman, Gladstein, Sacher, iCrockett leading. pointed which were The Court pur- Clerk for all McCabe notified the out that had been sustained. poses matter relating any the trial the already Mr. Notwithstanding that Sacher Broadway, of each is 401 Room address motion, ground had stated his Mr. 13, York, York New and that the New Sacher then asked the Court whether he 5-2010, telephone is WAlker office number say why could he wanted the re- telephone address number same counsel, buke Government but the Court press appeared which on the release re- permission. Mr. Sacher then re- refused ferred above. 3680): (Tr. marked in sarcastic manner XVI. see, only Mr. “I Gordon and Mr. Nico- April On course may speak.” demus direct examination witness Charles XVIII. Nicodemus, objected Mr. Gladstein to a question yet had been completed, April during the cross- transpired whereupon (Tr. examination of the witness Charles Nico- 3649-3650'): demus, Mr. Sacher asked the witness pleaded guilty to an indictment for car- Well, me, “The Court: it seems to Mr. rying weapons. Court, concealed ex- Gordon, something Why there that. stating pressly it understood that coun- him a don’t ask without cov- bringing crime, sel was out a conviction of ering matter of the other testimony? proceed permitted him the exam- something want to Is there direct his subject. this ination on Sacher then attention ? knew, of the entries on basis reflected Yes, I want to ask him “Mr. Gordon: copies judgments certified on the he had received instructions. whether possession, that the witness had been this, your object to Hon- separate “Mr. Sacher: guilty charges, found two quite or, obvious— it is because did not those but he disclose facts to the Instead, he continued Court. the cross- Why does “Mr. Gordon: Mr. Sacher subject, examination knowing that shout me down? permitting the Court the line of exam- Oh, Mr. Sacher shouting “Mr. Sacher: theory ination on that evidence con- down. boy this little convictions for crime cerning was being Now, Sacher, you When are elicited. Government counsel “The Court: old form. permitted judgments examine the back into getting *23 MO
sought purposes of the fact ruling, to inform the that with his Court for other Mr. guilty, (Tr. 3937). thereupon the witness had been found not Mr. arose Sacher objected every prevent the and exerted effort to Sacher statement. The Court (Tr. interrupted him, the Court go- disclosure of these facts to he was not saying that ing to have 3716-3723). propa- the trial carried on for ganda purposes. thereupon Mr. Sacher examination of In the course of redirect (Tr. object 3937) stated : “I to that. That reiterated that the Court witness prosecution is what the doing. are We had judgments disclosed that the witness trying prove to truth here we are 3765-3766), guilty (Tr. been found stopped being proving the truth. That whereupon (Tr. following occurred is what is happening.” 3767): this, Following Mr. Dennis arose and also, And in connection “Mr. Gladstein: stated he would like to make a ob- brief your you will with Honor’s statements servation. The again Court stated that it jury continue tell the case did not desire argument to hear further turned which Mr. Nicodemus was involved (Tr. 3937-3938). Nevertheless, Mr. Dennis guilty, you enough good out as not would commenced to make a statement. The that, add, you jury if that it was tell interrupted, Court asking Mr. Dennis if he in- 'because Mr. Nicodemus no doubt realized Court directed counsel not imposed sentence of nocent that the Court argue (Tr. 3938). this, Despite Mr. $140? continued, Dennis following oc- see, Gladstein, You it “The Mr. Court: (Tr. 3938-3940): curred experience I ei- first have ever had is the “Defendant I Dennis: would like to bar or at the bench where coun- ther at the observation, make your Honor, one brief brazen, again again where were so sel because question. this not a small shoulder to they argued Judge’s over would like to remind the Court that we jury in what seems to be deliberate eleven charged— defendants are not attempt induce the some member “The you Court: You realize I told disregard the Court’s instruc- thereof to this, do don’t ? have heretofore had occasion to tions. treading that that is dan- tell counsel Dennis: I might understood make hope gerous it not be re- a brief ground, will observation. peated.” But go want to just XIX. the’same. Now I don’t think help- are ing yourself by that, doing but that your April 25, in the course of the lookout. witness Garfield cross-examination Gladstein, would, he offered a book “Defendant briefly, Mr. Dennis: Herron like evidence, place question. to which was made to cardinal argument, After eleven charged, the Government. the We defendants are not intimated, that it admit Honor charged would not the en- ruled with con- but, book, portion spiring directly there some or indirectly attempt- tire with relevant, any steps the Court would allow or take overthrow our ing (Tr. portion 3928-3932). evidence Government force and violence. We point argued charged alleged arose Sacher with conspiracy At necessary organize Party, to have in its that it was the book Communist which the evidence, prosecution and he continued the claims entirety in would advocate and ¡Court necessity until the directed him to teach the argument duty and the to over- Immediately, 3936). throw the U. S. (Tr. Dennis desist Government force and violence, stated to him and that is and the Court we arose are charged argument, saying further our exercising rights not desire inalienable did pur- speech, press talk not be for the free that further free and free assemblage, in connection and— pose persuading the Court
áál daring please stop helping not you just that. You suppose are will are The Court: it, I yourself by doing your I am you but clients something now me to do to think.” do it. going to may just as di'sor- gentlemen “You XXI. disobedient, disrespect- just as derly, just as di- May the course On be, you will not you ful as choose to Thomas examination of the witness rect something which goad doing me into Younglove, the Government offered an edu- trial. prove difficulty only a source outline in near cational evidence. This was stop.” again you tell to “Now J day’s the close of the and Mr. Sach- session Court, the statement of Following requested er a recess to afford defense objection, and made an arose opportunity ex- Crockett counsel an examine the Dennis, who had remained Court asked not be hibit. The if it would statement, feet, saying (Tr. continued his practical subject, or go to some other Honor, remark, your final 3840): “And the if were not some which the wit- there books intend, as we is that defendants we upon identify. be called ness do, duty-bound what we really show replied he When Government counsel advocated, have what —”. proceed to subject, could not another that there were books that were be iden- point the Court it neces- At found tified, Mr. Sacher observed that if the val- sary adjournment five min- an to take idity any introduction of the books from continu- prevent Mr. Dennis utes to depended prof- introduction of ing direction. to flout its he ferred exhibit would feel bound to raise objection. XX. then The Court stated that certain 2, 1949, in of the May the course On were to identified it could see no books Angela witness cross-examination harm that could defense. come to the Calomiris, transpired following (Tr. Thereupon object- Mr. Crockett arose and
4471-4472): anticipation ed to the of the nature Court’s “Q. you have said that in the 1947 Now proof of additional the Government subjects which one of the course the first Although might offer. mentioned the books you capitalism that course studied at “Foundations of Lenin- Court struggle, nature involving the class “History ism” Communist capitalism. Union,” Party of Soviet of which both Objection. “Mr. Wallace: previously been admitted into evidence “The Sustained. witnesses, numerous identified preliminary suggested improperly That the Court was is “Mr. Gladstein: question question. yet, haven’t familiar with evidence asked Government’s adduced, (Tr. Honor. it as follows before think customary don’t it is 4826) : “I right. All “The Court: show such familiarity gets It that even be- “Mr. Gladstein: so possible proof course —with Gov- sustained, fore I ask might present. gist ernment That objection to it. of it.” Now that consider a dis- 'Court: XXII. impertinence— tinct May shortly after the lunch- question. not ask a did Gladstein: recess, the Government rested eon its case just an accumulation “The Court: —and set the Court aside the balance doing been here. You have hearing for the motions the de- day so that Court rules before gets desired to make. fense question, you asked a intimate making motions, prejudiced here that I don’t am so Instead defense lengthily argued Now adjourn- want be fair and am fair. counsel for an (Tr. argument, 6053-6054): highly ment “And it During merit. respects many reminiscent in of the Reich- (Tr. 6046-6048): occurred fire trial stag and of the of reac- efforts *25 all, rise, first of I “Defendant Dennis: tionaries in this and other countries to out- vigorously Honor, protest most to law Party prelude Communist as a ruling arbitrary outrageous against the trying drag path our nation along you made. just which have of war and fascism. And however much ? ruling is that “The Court: Which you may agree disagree think or with or in re- ruling Dennis: “Defendant I urge this strongly a matter of as even a rea- spect denying the defense elementary justice deprive most and not to present it motions opportunity sonable defense some of the remnants of due grounds for the motions. and the process of that we law should afforded be see, you fa- are not You “The Court: opportunity days an of a few at least to matters, Dennis. legal Mr. miliar with these prepare motions, argumentation.” our our familiar, your am Dennis: I “Defendant statement, Following this last Croc- things on which Honor, a number kett arose following (Tr. and the occurred briefly. speak very like to I would 6054): Well, ahead. This go “The Court: please— “Mr. Crockett: If the Court your time. Yes, “The Court: Mr. Crockett. say, I must the first “Defendant Dennis: “Mr. perhaps Crockett: —I assume cor- respect in to di- noted thing must be that rectly that it would be no ask avail to any arguments to' conclude recting counsel (cid:127) the' grant Court to a reasonable time after- this any by motions proffer 4:30 prepare— justice, because mockery makes noon “The Court: It would be without avail injunction de- by by ruling give to ask any making me to time by first to- produce its witness must fense They these motions. are to be made stated, your Honor morning, has morrow this afternoon. irrespective of what motions effect, in “Mr. why Crockett: That is I made the you cannot be convinced offer that we assumption. prima facie case. there is no Well, “The you Court: put that word question— you a Let me ask “The Court: ‘reasonable’ in there. (think) don’t And, moreover, that Dennis: “Defendant request time now is reasonable. you prejudged this case. why application. That is I denied the you question: Let me ask “The Court: think, your Honor, “Mr. Crockett: possible proof that the Do conceive it defendants, myself, that the as well charge might given be so support began other counsel this trial with certain argument legal insufficiency its clear that illusions that have been because shattered helpful? Does that strike might not be prejudicial actions of the Court.” concept?” possible as a theoretical suggested When the Court that Mr. Den- Subsequently the asked Mr. temperate, Crockett should more what, opinion, lacking in in his was’ nis (Tr. 6055) occurred : following proof ne- adduced the Government “Mr. Crockett: suggest that this latest cessary charge. sustain a To this Mr. ruling merely of'the Court all confirms Honor, replied 6050): (Tr. “Your Dennis prejudicial rulings that have been made respect thing that the I would first suggest the course of this trial. should we is that United States during the course of this trial it has actu- perpetrated permit being never ally possible been specta- and have heard police here, have a federal in- where making tors the Court’s rulings before the terpretation we of what defendants think ruling. Court himself made the in.” and believe very “The Court: interesting. It is Thereafter, argu- in the course of his “Mr. Because the Crockett: bias Court’s ment, following possible— Dennis made the com- so obvious it was Sacher, witness an article written interesting. very It Objection 1938 was offered in evidence. Court’s bias Because “Mr. Crockett: Attorney, was made the United States possible— it was was so obvious sustained insulting com- That is “The Court: Thereupon occurred Court. very Crockett, a making, Mr. you are ment (Tr. 6460-6462): comment.” insulting Honor, Imay Your Gladstein: required ask that the Government XXIII. objection to a grounds for its state the *26 n On ex- 1949, direct during May years twelve that this man wrote document Gates, witness amination John ago he that there before ever knew Sacher, Mr. which conducted was expressed he and when indictment an by the made objection an sustained in- political very issues views on his asked Attorney to a United States May I what the in case? know volved this he ever witness, inquiring wdiether prevent- legal is which a man is ground sentence pay fine or serve to intentions, state his showing ed from witness’ with the imposed in connection of mind— charge. The Court certain conviction on a my instruc- You “The Court: remember by Mr. argument attempted cut off an arguments? these tion about ruling opposition Sacher “Mr. I desire to ask Gladstein: argument desire did not that it direction require ex- to Court to the Government Thereupon, Mr. Gladstein the matter. whereby plode mystery this with the mere wilfully (1) which interjected a statement right object’ T can shut off the words referring to evidence misstated the of a man to show— Nicodemus the witness “conviction” of fact, when, this may “The You think that presence jury Court: argument helpful. It is cer- had been found matter of Nicodemus knew that ruled; tainly you (2) helpful to me. Now havi? had so guilty and that the Court requested, requested you Court’s cor- could improperly characterized the have argument Nic- the witness without those comments and injustice to rection required ; Government to state that the Court that the (3) insinuated odemus objection. applica- grounds of its That partiality in the impropriety and guilty was objection. The incident is denied. sustaining the tion 6271-6272): (Tr. as follows Honor, “Mr. Gladstein: we have Your here for months— n interrupt, your May I “Mr. Gladstein: sitting been ruling that Honor, object the Court’s please “The Court: Now don’t start this by testimony of prevents establishment argument again. over matter, and I of this outcome the ultimate May “Mr. Gladstein: I— strange is afforded contrast submit insistence, example, have it. “The Court: I desire to hear no by the Court’s motion, you no the If have some make If you have it. we
which —but pursuing objection, some state it and I will to its have Court’s over-insistence conviction rule on it. the arrest and conclusion final Nicodemus, concerning witness Well, object Gladstein: I do to a “Mr. me— would seem to which it prevents a which man from sum- ruling please You will desist from “The Court: to his defense deeds and the moning argument, Mr. Gladstein. further life acts of his committed 'before long any question it—(cid:127) there about Very “Mr. Gladstein: well.” really think, I do not “The Court: XXIV. Gladstein, you any right proceed have argumentative form of May the course the with that matter On you forbidden of the witness when I have it. Now have direct examination John got very 'by substantial record Gates, being already conducted which was deliberately ad- con- It is not Sacher: You disobedience here. bewildered, your temptuous. just I on. am go you choose if record now ditional Honor. dis- desire to have no “Mr. Gladstein: ar- I have told not to admonitions. obey the Court’s quite at gue really these am matters and have. But “The Court: why you flagrantly a loss to understand desire, your have a doI “Mr. Gladstein: disobey deliberately persistently open- jury the Honor, bring before my Probably it because instruction. book— ing pages you, don’t shout don’t like do- think, Well, Mr. Glad- “The Court: that.” very sort argument is stein, sort of XXVI. bring you are not entitled thing the- course of June it. I forbid before the direct examination of the witness John before, choose “Now as I said Gates, being Mr.. conducted things against of these record *27 pile up the Sacher, pamphlet Z. written William go on. you may yourself, objec- Foster was offered in evidence and exception I take “Mr. Gladstein: Attorney the United was- tion States remarks. Court’s Thereupon, sustained Mr.. Court. you will sit Otherwise Court: “The Gladstein moved that the Court strike out- witnesses, down. testimony of all Government dealing with the claim that the 'Communist exception to the take I “Mr. Gladstein: Party taught or its members and advocated' remarks. Court’s that force violence should be in- used Very well.” “The Court: event that the United States became in- volved in a war. This motion was denied' XXV. Court, (cid:127)by the but Mr. Gladstein continued 26, 1949, in the course direct May On argument. his The then oc- Gates of the defendant examination John (Tr. 6838): curred Sacher, objection was made to by Mr. know, Gladstein, “The Court: Mr. You witness, sus- of the and was question asked my that have indicated desire not to hear asked the then Court tained. Mr. Sacher arguments unless I desire them. which the theory for replied it do, your Honor, Court sustained. “Mr. Gladstein: but argument. Mr. Gladstein thought simply desire did not that that limited to- inquire of the argument. me, hearing and asked arose Now it seems to Attorney legal submit, as to what making United States and I that the Court is now Attorney urged plain grounds longer the United States it no wishes to hear defendants, re- support objection. The Court evidence from the and that be- gan put began an- to be true when the defense do this. Mr. then to- fused to Sacher witness, put ob- case.” to which its other Mr. jection made sustained. XXVII. 6532): angrily (Tr. Sacher stated 3, 1949, in course June is a soul in this “I there don’t think cross-examination of the defendant John- courtroom knows what the words who Gates, he question- refused to answer paid now’ means un- ‘Past sins must be for being Court, after directed to -do so permitted say is what this witness less he was contempt. sentenced Im- for talking he was about. mediately upon pronouncement contempt, judgment Gladstein, Messrs. “The Now— Sacher, Crockett, McCabe, Isserman and is the use of Sacher: And what defendants, remaining and the ten simul- jury? it before the laying taneously in the arose courtroom. The de- Henry your realize that ac- fendant defendant .Winston Court: — Hall, taking steps past each several contemptuous? Gus deliberately now is tion and toward Sacher to shouting, table Mr. said counsel Sacher stop the end of the (Tr. threat- : bench, disorderly 7123) “I am shouting in a began loud, resent the filling at the Court to shout record state- ening manner guilty adjudged my shouting ments- about They when all I am angry voices. were doing that, vigorously, speaking misconduct. contempt for their think, part of the function of an advo- time became so at that The situation cate.” necessary send for that it was serious Marshal, Deputies who Court commented Mr. Sacher additional building, vigorous speakers was one most courtrooms then other prevent had ever order and to heard. Sacher continued restoring to assist argue, saying (Tr. the courtroom. 7123-7124) incidents in : “That any further be, say your but I Honor that I resent Gladstein suggested to Mr. The Court trying things the defendant “prudent the defendants it would years years ago came 15 or 18 and I submit re- seats.” Mr. Gladstein resumed their being tried for is what he is request, (Tr. jected saying Court’s charged in indictment between the Honor, “Well, first 6975), your may I years April 1, July 1945 and right ruling of the witness com- on the I also wish Honor that I of his of his invocation plete the record think —”. don’t Amendment,” and the Fifth rights under argue Glad- continuing to thereafter. subsided, finally He when the instruct his clients did not stein *28 Court he was proceeding advised him seats, take their codefendants in direct and wilful disobedience of the di- gave heed the Court’s no the defendants rection Court. Isserman Messrs. direction. Sacher Court, statements also made XXIX. any attempt to as- them made neither of 1949, 9, On the defendant June John restoring order sist the 'Court Gates asked on cross-examination courtroom, Crockett and nor did Messrs. whether he had ever been convicted of a the defendant Dennis had McCabe. After shout, saying crime. He commenced to Court, made statements to the he turned to (Tr. 7363) making long : “I am not ex- urged he codefendants and stated that planation. testify me Let answer. did they at “upon my this co-defendants that you direct don’t why read the examination— speak they do not can act time — transcript? repetitious. This I testified urge pro- call fit. them not to see on the direct examination as to what I was (Tr. 6977). Only did the then vocation” of, McGohey convicted Mr. knows it co-defendants resume their seats in the ten very well—”. and order was restored. courtroom request- Attorney The United States then XXVIII. ed record show that the witness shouting had been when he made the last objected Mr. On Sacher June Thereupon (Tr. answer. Mr. Sacher stated question asked States to a United “May the 7364): record show that the wit- during Attorney the cross-examination being unnecessarily ness is crucified Despite Gates. the defendant John interrogations to he has truthfully frequently in the fact that Court had already.” answered argue past counsel not to without directed leave, When Court directed that this arguing, remark Mr. commenced Sacher stricken, of Mr. Sacher be 7123) Mr. (Tr. : “I Crockett saying should like ob- and, presence jury, in the arose being defendant is tried— said serve 7364) “May the interrupted (Tr. : record sug- him with the show The Court Nevertheless, day imprisonment is the fifth of the witness’ gestion desist. Mr. jail.” The Court remarked that it in a loud voice commenced to Sacher shout “Well, your Honor, provoked not into an answer (Tr. 7123) : I submit the Court regret. might later the Court directed Mr. Sacher then When that —”. stat- inadvertent, are was them object to that. We and I have warned (Tr. 7364): ed “I again con- injured again. say and we are now that such being the ones who are complain wilfully in- duct find must be and I to be permitted to being not -contemptuous. deliberately I think us. done being inflicted jury that is record, your present in the state object I must Isserman: anybody claim Honor, here to it ill becomes finding. Honor’s any martyrdom.” Very “The Court: well.” later, during Not much the cross-exami- XXX. witness, nation the same ses- of the same 1949, course On .the June court, sion she to answer a refused Gilbert the defendant cross-examination of juncture (Tr. 11,070). At this Attorney, he States Green the United 11,071-11,073): (Tr. occurred o-f concerning a series interrogated you oath “The Do remember the Court: application which he in an statements false as a wit- were sworn took pressed an answer prepared. When ness? statements, false concerning one of ques- object “Mr. Isserman: objection by An evasive. became witness tion. Sacher, was overruled. Isserman .Mr. Yes. “The Witness: and who represent the witness who did examination of participating “The Overruled. Court: attempted interjected, as an him, arose and “Q. Now, before —- like to 8895): “I would (Tr. diversion object May “Mr. Gladstein: pretty ‘This is quote Court’s —the inference from the Court’s pickings’.” small ? statement Your is noted. It XXXI. is overruled. the witness Yolanda August “Mr. Gladstein: Because the Court’s *29 defense, asked a Hall, by the called nothing statement has to do with that. then the and question cross-examination argument. I will “The Court: hear no : transpired (Tr. 11,031) object argu- my to that as “Mr. Gladstein: I note ob- I want to Isserman: “Mr. jection not based the facts on the is record. mentative. It by this witness. testified evidence “The You noted Court: have it. Sit Isserman, you do re- Mr. “The Court: down. admonition, my that when counsel member object “Mr. I that and Gladstein: to ask object’ merely state ? T objects, -counsel your Honor jury— to admonish the it several times this You have violated you “The Will down must Court: sit or forget? you morning. Did put you I call an officer to down? I will am reminded of it I “Mr. Isserman: interruptions have no more on cross-exami- goes over habit back It is now. day field nation. Your is over. up habit, give hard to years. It undoubtedly has en- your Honor your “Mr. I resent Gladstein: Honor’s yourself. gaged as—- remarks Every you time do “The Court: Marshal, you “The Court: Mr. will contemptuous direct, and I your action is please right, see I sat down —all think, disobedience of deliberate wilful and yourself. my command. May. object your “Mr. Isserman: I object your “Mr. I Isserman: must remarks and ask for Honor’s a mistrial on my conduct. characterization Honor’s your the basis of Honor’s remarks? heard “The counsel Court: I Denied. “The Court: again again give var- defense here excuses, forgotten or “Defendant Your Honor— they have Dennis: ious ques- argument, Mr. “The You want no will answer "The I Court: Court: yes tion or no state that cannot an- Dennis. swer it. in- an May make “Defendant I Dennis: object “Mr. Court’s
quiry ? to the of the Court Gladstein: badgering tone and manner the witness. you may. “The Court: “The nothing There about Court: like to I would “Defendant Dennis: tone, my please will sit down. ruling remarks of whether the know defendants make directed to the “Mr. desire to an ob- Court are Gladstein: I prejudice jection. case before our counsel as to jury? Marshal, you just “The Mr. will Court: heard They —(To reporter) question are not. I have “The Read the Court: enough from I have heard the witness. Mr. Gladstein. suggestions to enough interruptions and monkey “We will have no more business on, and so will have no witnesses and I here. interruptions cross-examination. more object ruling. “Mr. to the Gladstein: Now, for this final that is over that is object “Mr. Isserman: to the Court’s trial. remark. object “Mr. I wish Sacher: down, You will sit improper being wholly Honor’s remarks as Gladstein. prejudice unjustified designed to And register “Mr. I want Isserman: jury against the defendants. ruling. Court’s Your motion is denied. “The Court: Very “The Court: well. just wish “Defendant to state Dennis: prejudicial “Mr. Isserman: As Honor, very emphatically, your that for conduct of the case and to the defense and purposes the all intents and defendants are making impossible. the defense deprived deprived of counsel and “The Court: When I desire to ask a is set forth in the Sixth Amendment to the question, going I am it. ask I am Constitution.” through with the interference of counsel. XXXII. go question, “Now ahead and read the August during Reporter. the direct ex- Geraldyne Light- the witness amination of May Isserman: ask the Court a Isserman, was asked foot she question ? *30 objected. Government The
to which the (Question “The You may Court: not. to elicit the information Court undertook read.) question. direct In order to sought by a object “Mr. question. Isserman: I to that answer, Messrs. Isserman and forestall “The Overruled. Court: provoked disorderly disturbance Gladstein preventing an answer to “A. Under C I discussed— and succeeded 11,269-11,274): (Tr. follows question, Lightfoot, “The you Court: Mrs. did you hear tell question, me to answer that Lightfoot, in Mrs. this mat- “The Court: you subjects either that did discuss those or workers, strategy you did ter of you did that not discuss subjects? those dictatorship proletariat, discuss Now, which was it? You did discuss them unjust wars, just imperialism, you or did not discuss them? kind, or men- were not things that object “Mr. I to question. Isserman: that tioned? “The Overruled. Court: question. object I “Mr. Isserman: “Mr. Your Gladstein: Honor— Overruled. “The Court: topic “The Under 3—under Court: Overruled. “The Witness: I don’t want anything you, hear topic from C— Mr. Gladstein. Well, ob- ques- now to “Mr. I rise Isserman: way The that “The Witness: says— ject your question. question. It Honor’s tion was—I heard “The Isserman you (Mr. answer it Overruled. Then will Court: “The Court: seated.) Now, to, Lightfoot. Mrs. way you tell I you did subjects you those or did discuss you Now, Lightfoot, “The Mrs. Court: not? responsive will answer give me a direct and you question. that that did lecture includes question “The Witness: you subject mention the discuss kind,’ and— ‘things of that —did subject dictatorship Prole- ‘things out will take “The Then I Court: ? tariat of that kind.’ object question. “Mr. I Isserman: you— “Did “The Court: Overruled. question? May I hear “The Witness: Marshal, you “Mr. will Mr. Isser- show again. give will it over I “The Court: man to his seat? discuss, lecture in that “Did May I “Mr. Isserman: stand at not Strategy of the subject of the treating the point ? the Prole- Workers, Dictatorship of I right “The You will sit down. Wars, Court: Unjust tariat, Imperialism, Just enough contemptuous conduct have had ? any of them any going I am not Well, they men- “The Witness: more. discussion, course of during the tioned “Mr. I am Isserman: not aware me? asking you are is that contemptuous conduct. Well, suppose word I “The Court: aware, Well, you all “The Court: will be meaning peculiar some ‘discuss’has right. Party— Communist object that charac- I “Mr. Isserman: object I “Mr. Isserman: would like to terization. your Honor’s a mis- remark move for your Honor de- question. trial because has made the my will reform “The Court: impossible. fense class you mention “Did busy. Marshal, get “The Court: Mr. dictatorship of subject lecture the down.) (Mr. Isserman sits Proletariat? witness): (to “The answer Now didn’t mention “The Witness: question. lecture— obj ect Isserman: to that. minute. First of “Mr. Isserman: Just Overruled. ques- object Honor’s wish to all I question- may “The Witness: tion— — now; again hear after so much Isserman, amI “The Court: I do remember it. here. Now any interference going to have reporter “The Court: The will read it— and sit down go over there just will *31 you again: I will ask or you say say want what you then can you “In that lecture did afterwards. mention sub- dictatorship proletariat? ject Marshal, just escort “Now, Mr. Mr. object question. “Mr. Isserman: I to that seat. Isserman over to “The Court: Overruled. to make would like an I “Mr. Isserman: beginning “A. that- question. Am I Honor’s your do it? allowed to right, Court: All I “The sustain the ob- question. have no jection We will Go made it. back You have “The Court: more of it. (The marshal escorts sit there. down your question, “Go ahead next Mr. seat.) (Mr. Isserman Isserman to Mr. rises.) Isserman.”
US) successfully prevented right proper courtroom, the Court it is not in a Having answer, you that, an Mr. Gladstein must getting please know so let the Court, go as matter on.” attacked nevertheless then 11,275-11,276): (Tr.
follows ‘Order restored, had scarcely been sought And that includes the “Mr. Gladstein: Court to elicit certain informa- bullying tion witness, and the and bluster- from the badgering tone which was called for witness, ing question tone towards asked Mr. Isserman. Again Messrs. Isserman and suc- Gladstein Oh, nothing “The there is about Court: cessfully prevented the Court from obtain- noisy at all or loud. my tone that is ing answer, (Tr. 11,281 11,- as follows — No can retain “Mr. Gladstein: witness 284) : composure dignity the attack under “Q. At you give whose instance did during your just Honor has levied that course? A. giv- That was a course assign I the last half hour. as miscon- en— duct. Why “The you just Court: don’t give the you I “The Court: said consider person’s name. you Who was it that told absolutely contemptuous, Mr. Gladstein. give that course? you keep you upit Now can all want but Well, your “Mr. you against my (Mr. Gladstein: Honor, do it McGoh- I orders. object to that. ey rises.) It not have been a person. McGohey; Yes, you “The Court: do “The Court: Overruled. say something?
desire to “Mr. Gladstein: I you don’t think McGohey: say I should “Mr. cer- desire to direct way. the witness loud; tainly your Honor’s tone was not nothing I there was observed in the “The Court: Read the to the badgering, suggest I nature witness, now please, Reporter, and see if go we be allowed to on with the trial. stop we can this (Question circumlocution. read.) “The Yes. Court: “A. This given— course was object “Mr. Isserman: And I to Mr. “The Now, Lightfoot, you Mrs. McGohey’s being remarks as not in ac- say are going at whose instance it was. cord with the facts. That means giving the name. “Mr. I Gladstein: would like to Isserman: object want to to that they directly contrary facts, are question. your willing, permit, am Honor will poll have a taken of the “Mr. Gladstein: I members of the want object people making and the press and the a direction to this witness people in attendance pointing this courtroom at finger at the in an witness this moment to——as intimidating way. assign that miscon- duct, your Honor. Gladstein, Court: Mr. know earlier in trial Gladstein, you found that no “The Court: Mr. per- matter are leeway gave fectly much way you
how wonderful counsel just make these put things up. tried the whole administration of justice disrepute by just into sort your pardon “Mr. Gladstein : I beg ? conduct that indulging in, now Oh, you go “The Court: ahead now. emphatic I tell now in the way most “Mr. Gladstein: Does deny Honor *32 I my that know raising voice, without that you that —- you are from to desist wholly that. It is McGohey: Oh, “Mr. if the please, Court improper, you know, must to talk about get can’t we on with trial stop and having people this in polled the courtroom ? nonsense polled and having toas whether a by somebody statement made is my accurate I “The Court: finger, raised and the right perhaps That is in place not. all some imagination rest of it is sheer but done de- to, un- placed have the defendants up Mr. counsel and are liberately. what I know Court, casé- der surveillance this and the here your colleagues You and Gladstein. way and actually proceeding is now that made again have and trying, again and at- a marshal—in a martial for proceeding record positively statements false mosphere. appear to making me purpose of wrong and to do the prejudiced biased denied, Mr. “The Your Court: motion However, I doing. am not things, that I Dennis. ' silently by sit going to am For other “Defendant Dennis: those and that. do I reasons move for mistrial. your part deny I “Mr. Gladstein: “The motion denied. charges me with which statement Honor’s ahead, “Go Mr. Isserman.” making false statements. charge of happen I be in “The Court: XXXIII. charge of happen I to be this case 5, 1949, shortly August after On this court. witness Robert cross-examination Honor, but know, your I “Mr. Gladstein: Attorney -by Manewitz States United deny I show that I the record wish began, was he had resumed he asked when charges your statement part Honor’s activity League. Young in the Communist any state- colleagues with false my me or Thereupon, (Tr. occurred agree only with but affirm ments, and I not 11,577-11,578): which your Honor’s statement part c object “Mr. I to this line Sacher: is biased your Honor effect that is to questioning. prejudiced. “The Court: Overruled. say you say that? Court: Did “The kept “Mr. Sa-cher: I was from— your things very often, table so said interruption I will have no “The Court: You have subject. on that unanimous to be cross-examination; is over. suppose again and I again and me attacked justified? do it. Even it is continue to “Mr. Sacher: you will ahead, argument “Now, go Mr. Isserman. “The Court: do not desire you, impertinence Mr. Sacher—nor join Gladstein’s “Mr. Isserman: either.” remarks. your Honor’s object to denial and XXXIV. “The Court: Yes. the rest of August me to have in the desire course “Do -too, views, Mr. Isser- give defendant Robert direct examination
counsel Thompson, an the Court sustained man? to define asking to a the witness Honor— Dennis: Your “Defendant Mr. Gladstein then Marxism-Leninism. bit, your Mr. add You “The Court: proceeded against rul- argue the Court’s Dennis. despite ing the Court’s direction that there to make I arise Dennis: No. “Defendant (Tr. argument, no as follows should be first on basis for a mistrial motion 11,818-11,819): disrespectful belligerent and the hostile May I call Honor’s Gladstein: witness, which the Court to attitude of record— state attention pres- testimony and the interferes with No, I don’t want hear “The Court: entation our case. ' argument about it. my part con- of motion second But, your Honor— “Mr. Gladstein: ruling of the with the nection frequently deprives all counsel I will hear what this “The Court: witness objection, but grounds of their stating the taught, resolutions directed objection. to move to rise even up the setting schools voted taught schools, to be motion was that the “And, thirdly, must *33 time-comes, does, testify if it him to you the because granted be should mistrial for a schools, asked, McGohey and not di- taught particular he because Mr. I permit. I rected. will within certain limitations question us to before
do conceive the any you “Your Honor said did not want question which makes that relevant. one argument, breath, I my said under ‘Well, your Honor no- that is no secret.’ Gladstein: Would “Mr. your per- Honor tice in the record extremely Court: I “The think that is an pre- asked the witness Budenz
mitted you do, improper thing do cisely question give an answer and to you right are leaning the rail of the to it? there, you box I admonish not to again.” do that just you I You told “The Court: know argument you I but to hear didn’t desire XXXVI. again point in get and so wanted August 29, 1949, On during the direct ex-
you contemptuous. ahead. Go have become amination of Max defense witness May I ask witness Gladstein: “Mr. Weiss, Mr. Isserman sought to elicit testi- question McGohey very same that Mr. mony concerning the disaffiliation asked, your Honor? Party Communist from Communist In- object- ternational. When the Government Gladstein, you, I Court: tell “The ed, argument by the Court heard Mr. Isser- argument. again, I do to hear not desire Attorney man and the United States argue I do not want “Mr. Gladstein: then objection overruled Government’s — n permission asking am (Tr. 13,334 13,337). testimony After some — No, you arguing, are subject, “The Court: on the the Court an ob- sustained contemptuous.” you again jection question to a concerning a state- convention, a ment at and Mr. Sacher inter- XXXV. jected implied himself partiality rulings argument. the Court’s in permitting during the direct ex- August Strong, amination of the witness Edward doing so, again persisted arguing defense, called was sus- despite express the Court’s statement that it question the witness tained to asked of (Tr. hear him 13,338) : The Court Mr. Gladstein. stated that “Q. Either at the National Committee argument, and Mr. wanted no Gladstein meeting which attended in 1940 or the ruling then commented convention attended in was there private Court, jury, aside to as fol- by anyone made statement that the de- (Tr. 13,169): lows cision disaffiliate one that was a right. all Court: It is don’t want “The Comintern decision? argument, Mr. Gladstein. McGohey: Objection. “Mr. That is no— Gladstein: “Mr. “The Court: Sustained. McGohey: What was that? “Mr. May that, “Mr. Sacher: I be heard on talking myself. I was “Mr. Gladstein: your ? Honor McGohey: Were talking to “Mr. “The Court: No. yourself part jury? “Mi*. Sacher: In view of the fact that did not hear what was “The — n McGohey' said. you. “The Court: I will not hear McGohey: I heard. “Mr. “Mr. McGohey Sacher: But Mr. willing am Gladstein: “Mr. what permitted to make a statement concerning I said. this. Say McGohey: “Mr. it. McGohey “The Court: Mr. responded to you say? Court: What did me and further asked leave asking Your Gladstein: Honor to address the Court I permitted. replying you. hear I am because Honor do not desire to
me and *34 arguing. I was not Honor “Mr. Crockett: your asked I have “Mr. Sacher: you now for leave. “The That is what Court: up. you kept it every you it silent, time said Mr. Sacher. Please “The Court: . ques- go with the on contemptuous. stop Let us now and you deliberately (cid:127)Again are tions.” asking opportunity “Mr. am Sacher: I McGohey. reply to Mr. XXXVIII. ahead, Isserman.” “The Court: Go September 14, 1949, the course in On defendant XXXVII. of the the cross-examination cer- Winter, a Government offered Carl direct during September photostatic copy of. a birth certificate tified Winter, Carl defendant examination object- a, evidence, Crockett to which Mr. question concern- him asked Crockett him to granted The leave Court ed. Legion, to the Black ing objection. How- grounds state the of his objec- Court sustained was made. ever, legal grounds for place stating did time stated at same tion (Tr. as follows objection, argued, his Nevertheless, the fol- argument. not want 14,219-14,220): 13,893-13,894): (Tr. lowing occurred First, I that there submit “Mr. Crockett: point May I out— Crockett: “Mr. relationship. family is an invasion argu- further don’t want I Court: “The re- which has no This refers to situation ment. whatever, certainly should lation say—to I wanted Cróckett: “Mr. Certainly I in this be submitted court. contempt are I think “The Court: exhibit itself apparent from the think is any I will not do it. Don’t now. my signature appears nowhere client’s is over. time for that more. that or the nothing There is it. your to.object I wish “Mr. Sacher: original, un- it is taking and I submit that Mr. Crockett’s characterization Honor’s advantage him what of a man to show fair contempt. conduct may object. You have Court: You “The legal making a “The Are Court: yourself. enough itof done argument speech we have had or here so object to that often? I wish to Sacher: “Mr. I will think the record
.characterization. circumstances “Mr. Crockett: Under the sought to has Honor prove, I think grounds. any I further decline state sufficientlyagainst coun- prejudice this Court, point talking is no There sel. grounds, I to state the would like mind apparent when it Honor’s deliberately con- Yom “The might I any grounds state.” closed to temptuous again. “Mr, ruled that Thereupon wish to defend am not. I Sacher: said right portion exhibit was relevant and my and the clients rights 14,222): cause, (Tr. the con- and resent advocate part on the effort stant obstruction address, “I the name and the shall receive Court. no that there be misunderstand- so no been obstruc- Court: There has “The record, I shall read into the ing them about effort, have order but will tion permitting the exhibit to be rather than here, it with I will enforce attorneys jury, following: handed around “ my disposal. every power at child, name, ‘Father of the full Carl May ask the Court Crockett: Winter, race, Age Caucasian. Color has been disorder suggesting there birth, Length of residence time of this attorneys? California, months, years, three zero zero Pennsylvania. days. place, Birth Usual upon continu- Court: You insisted Industry or ago occupation lecturer. business: moment and told only a arguing ing ” self.’ stop. *35 point (Tr. “Q. At said I Mr. Sacher Now purports show 14,222-14,223): Angeles Los Area Tele- Extended phone Directory of March issued your Honor’s May Sacher: I call “Mr. Telephone Southern California Com- you indicated to the fact that attention pany your and I page direct attention to items, that Mr. just there were three McGohey You limited it to three items? 202— object have read about now. “Mr. Sacher: six a moment. I Just question. to that say, your May Witness: I Honor—(cid:127) “The “The Court: Overruled. address, “Mr. name Sacher: Just I “Mr. as recall it. Sacher: I like to be heard if may. May “The Witness : I address the Court? “The you, Court: don’t hear desire to Name, address, and “Mr. date. Sacher: Mr. Sacher. please— “Mr. If Crockett: the Court “Mr. Sacher: Will there day, come a part “The Court: this additional Is ” your Honor, will ? hear us you?” very objectionable I read juncture, At this Crockett made a Mr. XL. which, emphasis by its statement sarcastic day October after the “seemingly,” on the the Court word accused Court had opinion filed denying the re- intentionally more of ex- reading quest of Benjamin Davis, the defendant J. read, hibit than fol- should have been Jr., discharge Mr. Sacher as his counsel (Tr. 14,223): lows lengthy argument Davis, was made Mr. please, If Crockett: Sacher, Mr. Isserman, McCabe, Mr. Mr. seemingly view of uninten- Honor’s Crockett, Gladstein, Mr. Mr. and Mr. Den- than— n reading tional more nis, that the Court ruling. reconsider its Crockett, “The Court: Mr. one Immediately following the statement that contemptuous things of the most that has the Court adhered ruling, to its Mr. Den- occurred at this trial. nis moved a mistrial. stating trying— I am “Mr. Crockett: grounds Dennis, without founda- tion, will And for bias, accused the Court of say- racial brought justice. ing (Tr. 15,293-15,294): “In light.of the fact that the Court recognized my has trying say, “Mr. Crockett: I am inalienable rights constitutional and grant- — n permission the Court’s ed me Communist, white defendant, just mind, “The Court: You bear that in who lawyer, is not a right to conduct Mr. Crockett. my defense, own denial its of this right to Honor, may “Mr. Crockett: Your I— Davis, Negro Communist, a defend- “The Court: seemingly You do ant happens lawyer, who abe can something deliberately and accuse me of be construed gross as an act of discrimina- evil ” That something motives here. tion and an affront Negro people pass cannot over and shall not. I now Dated: October adjudge you contempt for that.” Medina, Harold R.. S.U. D. 7. XXXIX. FRANK, Judge, Circuit concurring (ex Court, At the same session cept Specification I)*. following occurred during the cross-ex- amination defendant Carl Winter 1. “Friends of the court” have filed with concerning his (Tr. 14,240- use of an large alias us a number of eloquent- briefs which 14241): ly how, past, recall courageous law- * rehearing. previous concurringopin- concurring opinion This has been revised * ion has been withdrawn. petition after a consideration of the
á5á
liberty
Here
of the mat-
we come to the ’heart
yers
importantly
contributed
*36
liberties of citi-
unpopular
ter: Preservation of the
democracy by defending
zens,
tyran-
charged
on trial for crimes
browbeating of
clients, despite the
them,
against
in
order
the court-
those
demands
nical,
In
domineering,
judges.
trial
order,
trial
room. Absent such
no
can
that, we affirm
briefs,
if
expressed
fear
case,
important,
fair.
criminal trials
More
if
contempt
in this
orders
orderly fashion,
minority
go
cannot
then the
for
lawyers
or
for labor unions
defendants,
unpopular
if
if members of
will, in
or
persons
unpopular
groups
for
or
minority groups, may become the victims
or
future,
throttled.
be intimidated
of that monstrous substitute for trials—
misplaced.
fears
eloquence is
gravest danger
mob
to those
violence. The
pun-
orders
affirm the
are unfounded. We
minorities,
the “friends
on whose behalf
they
lawyers not because
ishing these
spoken,
easily
result
court” have
could
clients,
be-
their
or
courageously defended
power
judge
of a trial
from a denial of the
Communists, but
clients were
cause those
trial-disrupters
judge
to deal
lawyers’ outrageous
only because of
short,
lawyers
has dealt with
here.
kind which
law-
of a
no
conduct—conduct
protection
calls for
of civil liberties
client,
yer
cannot ever
his
owes
sustaining
contempt judgments in this
employed
justified,
never
and which was
case.
advocates,
for
minorities or
by those
for
judge,
urged,
it is
The trial
committed
courage
made
unpopular, whose
has
grave
trial,
at
in that he im-
errors
lawyers
proud.
lawyerdom
The acts of
properly
lawyers
pre-
barred
from
in this
can make
trial
defendants
behalf,
senting
on their clients’
evidence
proud.
man
sensible
no
stating objections
rulings
from
his
assaulting
like
was
What
did
adverse to those clients. Whether he thus
flight,
turning
pilot
aeroplane
or
an
ap-
do not
all consider on these
erred we
surgical operation.
during
lights
a
out
fully
peals;
those asserted
will be
errors
words, they tried to throw
homelier
To use
later,
appeals
when the
of these
canvassed
machinery
justice.
What-
a wrench
lawyers’
clients are heard
this court.
purpose,
their
have been
acts
ever
Even, however,
(for
if
sake of the
im-
a trial of their clients
have made
might
argument) we were now to assume that the
possible.
punish such behavior sum-
Not to
mistakes,
trial
made those serious
but, instead,
marily,
require
trial
long
not
fact could
excuse the
tactics of
lawyers,1 might
to encour-
well be
of these
lawyers.
upper
Often
these
courts have re-
summary
that sort of behavior. The
age
judges
convictions because trial
seri-
versed
here will
to deter imita-
tend
punishment
lawyers
ously
ably
misbehaved. But the
who
behavior in
trials.
If
of that
other
tion
procuring
those
succeeded
did
reversals
deterred, the administration of
not,
trials,
during
demean
themselves in
likely
highly
courts is
our
justice in
way. Every lawyer
disgraceful
knows
break .down.
at a trial
brawling
effective means
about
bringing
erring
the reversal of an
simple
is as
The basis
our decision
quoted
orders,
judge.
us,
have had
We
not because
affirmthese
We
that.
Ethics,
of Professional
the Canons
basic
of the trial
af-
.“dignity”
personal
profession
principle
legal
that “no
exists,
fronted;
dignity,
such
when it
judicial
public
disfavor
unpop-
fear
or
punitive
itself,
no
safe-
needs
manifests
lawyer
restrain” a
ularity should
“from the
plain
guards.2 We affirm for the
reason
discharge
duty”
of his
if
full
client.
lawyers,
the crude antics of these
agree that
But
cannot
fearless
cases,
we
lawyers would al-
other
copied
discharge
requires
permits
duty
a lawyer
disrupt
surely
trials.
most
prolonged
62 S.Ct.
1846;
86 L.Ed.
tlie
159 A.L.R.
infra as to
character
1. See
Frank,
(1949),
on Trial
.
cf.
Courts
trial.
of such a
Bridges
California, 314
256-261.
U.S.
v.
2. Cf.
This,
think,
trial.”
squabble.
charges something
trial into a bar-room
turn a
any in the
a con-
conspiracy;
alarm
nature
will
in our decision
Nothing
repre- spiracy, inherently,
agreement.
involves an
lawyer,
what client
no matter
Although
overwhelming
judge’s
happened
sents,
behaves as
who
presence
powerful
such an
lawyers fortunately
evidence of
majority
do.
of our
itself,
agreement,
agreement
there
course,
gravity
lawyers’
Of
one,
court;
presumably
out
was made
not settle
misbehavior does
*37
any rate,
conclusively pre-
it cannot be
summary
by
procedure
punishment
whether
pres-
judge’s
sumed that
it was made in
question
that
legally permissible. To
ence;
entirely
it is not
inconceivable that
I now turn.
conspiracy could be
the inference of a
re-
Undeniably,
summarily
con-
punish
by
of matters
seen
butted
evidence
not
or
tempt
charge
guilty
a man
a
and hold
—to
judge.
heard or
In
by
considered
those
is,
be, a
crime without a
should
trial—
circumstances,
think,
judge,
could not
exception in
extraordinary
most
a civilized
lawyers
Spec-
properly sentence the
under
ordinarily,
legal system;
country
in this
hearing,
they
ification I without a
at which
person constitutionally
is
entitled
accused
opportunity
have
evi-
to offer
before
other than
trial and
some one
they
tending
dence
show that
had not en-
Congress
Supreme
his accuser. But
and the
Specifica-
a conspiracy.
tered into
As this
exception:
recognized
Court have
one
The
possible
tion
(a)
involves both
out-of-court
(promulgated by
the Rule
statute and
(b) “disrespect
conduct and
to or criticism
Supreme Court) explicitly authorize a trial
himself,
judge
of” the trial
I think the hear-
punish summarily
judge to
a trial
—without
ing (if
one) must,
ever there is
under Rule
judge
(a)
before another
which is
—conduct
42(b), be
judge.4
before another
In but this
(b)
contemptuous
judge
which the
respect,
diverge
one
from Judge Hand
heard,” being
“saw and
“committed in the
agree
Judge
with
Clark.
presence
validity
actual
court.” The
consequent
But the
Speci-
reversal
toas
of that statute
of that
is
or
Rule
not chal-
practical
fication
can have no
effect.
lenged
anyone.
by
here
For the sentences of each
lawyers
of the
exceptional procedure
Such
is designed,
concurrently,
record,
run
and the
Judge
says
Supreme Court,
prevent
“to'
‘de-
shown,
Hand has
supports
amply
the other
moralization of
authority,’
the court’s
be- Specifications.5
(other
fore the
And
public.”3
than the con-
3.
far
Specifications
So
as those
Specification
duct described in
I) all the
they
concerned—since
charge
all
acts in the
punished
acts for which here the judge
the court-room, seen and
by
heard
the judge—
lawyers
by him,
were seen and heard
conspiracy
wholly
irrele-
happened in the court-room.
vant,
Specification I,
because
being distinct
I,
Specification
however, charges that
separate,
cannot be read into those
lawyers “joined
wilful,
in a
deliberate
Specifications. Nor,
other
think,
delay
effort to
concerted
and obstruct
conspiracy charge imported
into them
Oliver,
257, 275-276,
3.
U.S.
Advisory
re
333
Committee,
68
with refer
682;
509, 92
S.Ct.
L.Ed.
Cooke
42(b),
ence
Rule
cites the Norris-La
S.,
Act,
v. U.
267 U.S.
45 S.Ct.
Guardia
29 U.S.C.A. §§ 101-135.
limits—due to over case was ment assumes here the and without reference of court out (on 14) entered October trial, It has been had misbehaved. oh case contempt fact, it In actual orders. bearing on the has no held that such a'belief then Not later over. until week propriety of itself.6 (on 21) judge (a) did .sentence October aside,the presented for new to him motions issue, conspiracy no Putting judgment, made trial arrest of that, charges in- because the asserts one *38 clients, lawyers and behalf on of their the the “disrespect of or criticism” of volved law- arguments from the (b) lengthy hear was im- summary procedure judge, the yers on imposed the be on sentences to only argument against proper.7 The made bail, clients, for those and on the motions validity judge the not sentence that did is its clients, appeal; only on pending those for instantly offense occurred. In after each day the termi- (October 21) case lawyers that did words, argued these it is that other court, in the with the denial nate trial trial, before a another entitled to sentencing and the of the those motions only one reason— one and for the judge, clients. (already contention consid- apart from the conspiracy ered) However, based on assumption of the mistaken —that acting impulse judge, instead trial fact that closed when case was moment, sen- restrained himself lawyers, summarily punished of the judge advanced; a time. at later is following argument tenced sup- delay-argument (which finds no Summary This punishment only valid provision applic- explicit port tend, example, im- future stop will takes Rule) several interruptions statute or able case then before proper expose Analysis its is needed to very forms. case in which the court—of the same therefore, noted that If, It should first be sum- happened. fallacies. interruption necessarily but punishment has none mary disturbance, no matter how an in-court effect, always open-court for shocking, immediately punished, future is not interruption of the disturbance, or court’s despite obstruction not if, the case is -justifies punishment such actually up business but able to its broken reach hap- already has, things, conclusion, in the nature summary punishment im- then prevented by any be sort pened and cannot purpose— its posed primary cannot serve summary punishment, punishment. No e., example) in- prevention (by of further i. otherwise, contempt, ever undo will particular with that case—and terferences Therefore, excep- past. thing Never, always it is contend- forbidden. punish cannot power summarily summary be ed, may tional method the drastic ability on the to forestall possible (aside founded value when its used York, g., Tanney, D.C., See, Eckerson, Williams New 337 e. v. F. 6. v. 235 v. Bailey 1079; 241, answering argument 69 U.S. S.Ct. that a an 127; 126, Judge States, Cir., judgment “spoiled” it, 7 284 F. United in a recital Peterson v. United Cir., States, judgment 4 246 said that “the Hand Beamed Stobble v. 118, States, recitals, 119; United in its F. reside does v. See, mandatory provisions.” 7 69, Cir., 71; same 91 F.2d Hunter United 710; Cir., Clark, States, effect, Cir., State v. Oil 6 149 F.2d Standard Co. v. 2 Martin, 346, 500, 917, 164 P. 502- F.2d 928. 49 Utah 163 v. 1, 503; Bjelkstrom, 104 20 S.D. State 7. note 4. See v. State, 481, 483; Cason 16 Ga. N.W. 644, 820, App. S.E. 86 will be to de- where the disturber) U.S. punishing S.Ct. L.Ed. interruptions of case was over ter, example, before disturber was similar charged contempt summarily pun cases. future ished. These the facts: After the cir terms, contention In blunt cuit court had concluded hearing its that, Suppose result: surprising have this case, a pending presiding judge began, brought case, in a criminal had open court, opinion read court’s discharged; had in its been verdict embodying Terry’s its decision of that case. heard at once judge the trial had then improper interrupted reading, conduct trial; and that new denied motion for a he then left the court-room. The court defendant, thus sentenced the he then had not, once, did cite and him. sentence Suppose.that, after ending case. Instead, the presiding judge resumed participants all in that case defendant and reading opinion. of the court’s When departed, while the was wait- had reading, finished that that case terminated. open court, another case to ing, in Only then did the summarily court cite and court-room, shouting called, someone Terry contempt.8 sentence Obviously, ink- tyrant, judge was a that the threw summary procedure could contention, According him. bottle at prevented interruptions by any further validly punish cite and could not one progress Terry case which summarily, but would have the offender interrupted. summary punish judge, hearing, him another accord before *39 purpose ment could have served no other opportunity with an to offer evidence. than Terry deter like or (by interference pos- Why? Because the offense could not others) other with cases. sibly pending disturb case the before fop court, none, summary there was and the said, It attempted is in distinction punishment do more than to could no de- case, Terry’s of delay there the was later, other, misconduct in ter cases. short, while long.9 here it was I fail to understand, contention, sound, This even were it shortness, how the in Terry’s here, apply already could not here. For case, of the interval between misconduct noted, ended, the case had not so that the punishment support in-the-very- can the punishment lawyers of the could still tend argument.10 same-case For that shortness very prevent disturbances, further in the that, cannot Terry’s alter basic fact case, by lawyers per- same those or other case, summary punishment could not sons. conceivably prevent anyone tend to we But interfering need consider here the orderly with the progress of ended, theory case had not for whole very case improper which the inter- squared is unsound. It cannot be with the If, place. then, ference took an exclusively leading subj summary decision on the ect of in-future-cases-deterring effect does not suf- procedure, contempt parte Terry, summary contempt Ex fice to proceed- 128 a sustain appear delay report justified 8. The facts was there be- Terry state, case the lower court. In Ter cause the offender re had fled the ry, Cir., 419, days spent 9 F. soon as 86 420: “As sixteen in efforts ceased, bring custody. the disturbance had Field Justice him back in But proceeded opin reading procedure with the summary sole basis of the ion, operates after which orders were made to deter further dis- adjudging Terry ease, court Mr. and Mrs. turbances in the same it would be significance guilty contempt, directing why procedure no imprisonment delayed. punishment For, as a therefor.” was reason, whatever punishment longer could no func- Terry’s case, Supreme Court cited except tion as a deterrent of misconduct approval State, Middlebrook 43 v. as to future cases. 257, Am.Rep. 650, Conn. 21 where there days jurisdic- an interval of sixteen be 10. The relation of that interval contemptuous Terry’s person tween the act and the sum tion over is discussed in- mary punishment, which was meted out fra. suggested after the case was over. It
458
trials, but
But deterrence of others in
Terry’s
wrongly
other
decided.
ing,
case
judici-
merely
Rule
preservation
meant
Advisory Committee’s note
ary’s
worshipful pub-
general glamor
authorizing summary con-
42(a)
Rule
—the
lic
in 1821the
judges.
is sub-
attitude towards
But
“This Rule
tempt procedure—reads:
law”; Supreme
judi-
existing
plain
made it
that the
Court
stantially a
restatement
support
power
contempt
parte Terry
punish
cial
did
rest'
Ex
note
cites
judges’ de-
on so
as the
weak foundation
that statement.
admiration;12
Su-
public
sire
for
effect
in-future-cases-deterring
That the
preme Court,
effect,
same 120
said the
permitting sum-
for
reason
primary
years later, in 1941.13
ap-
contempt
mary punishment
in-court
257,
Oliver,
68
pears
re
U.S.
from In
appel-
case,
On the basis
the Oliver
lower
499,
682. There the
92 L.Ed.
S.Ct.
argue:
prevention
lants however
punished alleged mis-
summarily
court
such
for
demoralization is the reason
mak-
hearing.
at
court
occurring
conduct
secret
ing contempt
imposing
a crime—not for
summary pro-
Supreme
held the
Court
punishment
represents
without
It
trial.
constitutionally
After ob-
invalid.
cedure
punishment,
rationale
not for method
at
68 S.Ct.
serving,
page
at
U.S.
imposed.”
reading
it is
A
which
punishment may
summary
page
opinion
argument:
Oliver
will answer this
prevent
it is essential to
used,only where
Court,
think,
that,
because
there held
authority be-
the Court’s
“demoralization of
demoralization
there was no
of the court’s
said,
public,”
Supreme
fore
public,”
authority
summary
“before the
page
462
S.,
Holmes.18 Those
517,
390,
statements Mr.
U.
267 U.S.
45
L.Ed.
S.Ct.
69
Justice
statements, however,
767,
Michael,
are torn from their
in
224,
In re
326 U.S.
66 S.Ct.
78,
since,
them,
30,
in
Holmes discussed
90
contexts
L.Ed.
Oliver,
in In re
333 U.
acts,
257,
contempt-punishment for
S.
68
499,
out-of-court
S.Ct.
á63 example, punishment, to re- as retribution that our failure argued 8. It requirements ordinary then the of proc- trial due other will invite orders verse all these person about ess must ac- be satisfied. For impatient or over-sensitive judges, contempt, like con- of a criminal other summary cused dignity, to exercise accused, opportunity to ex- is entitled should not power cases where it tempt in culpate himself, per- far evidence so1 as his from Mr. Borrowing again exercised. be imprison- mits, being before sentenced to Holmes, may answer, “Not while we Justice issue in this said, Hence immediate ago man ment. Long a wise court sits.”22 appropriate case is at all between uses objected it that one who “And if be * * * complete immunity punishment and unjustly might do power such penalty; to the manner in which is as harm, charge be which great is a * * * * * * question punishment guilt or can things of be against made .le- * * ”23 * tried, or gally appropriately more Were the most are useful broadly power preserve the course which will discretionary best of possibility abusing once rights of the accused govern- and the rejection, its all to blanket to lead not, dignity of the law accordance with the must paralyzed.24 We would be ment highest substantially justice. standards of American distinctions, by overly refined here, wipe judicial used discretion out The just distinction have indicated be- shall, necessary must —as we whenever but summary contempt per- tween action for prevent misuse. its in future cases— mit the court function and more
leisurely hearing course of determined CLARK, punishment to settle the Judge (dissenting). Circuit for violation of quite thoroughly court orders is settled Anglo-Saxon schooled tradi- To one Indeed, vigorously cases. has been decorum, legal the resistance tions only recently by restated Supreme appellants occa- on various pressed these “Except narrowly for a Court. limited cat- rulings the trial neces- sions to contempts, egory process due of law as sarily appears natur- abominable. Yet such explained requires in the Cooke case reaction does not itself al emotional one charged contempt of court be ad- imprisoned with- prove that should charges him, vised of against have a or after hearing weeks months out a opportunity by way reasonable to meet them appear must For the law events. both explanation, right of defense or have the vindictive; than inexorable rather represented by counsel, to be process course of due re- the constitutional testify chance to other call witnesses sentence come quires conviction and behalf, by way in his either orderly hearing defense upon announced only after explanation. exception narrow opportunity charges and full accused True, process requirements due there a these defend themselves. includes exception necessity only charges misconduct, resting open court, single presence of the judge, If there breaches sense. are common disturbs business, pre- point behavior court’s where all of courtroom the essen- court, proper functioning of the tial elements venting the misconduct are under court, authority eye actually to take has the nec- observed court, steps essary punish- secure order. But the dif- and where immediate prevent require steps- drastic ment essential to ficulty does not so ‘demoralization authority’ without court’s indeed been surmounted resort of the before public. lias *** right open to be is one heard to them —and court See, g., Douglas, Knox, Democracy 24. Oil Co. v. 277 U.S. e. 22. Panhandle (1940 ) 243ff; Frank, Finance If 223. Men Angels (1942) Chapters 3,1, Were 10 and Aristotle, Rhetoric 1355b. 23. referring argue power He effectively, but his remark is nonethe- pertinent. less *45 46á before condemned is too justice one is valuable In to the trial it must be away guise pointed under the ‘demor- whittled of upon out perfectly that he a acted ” authority.’ alization the court’s In re of theory, namely, rational conspir- that of a Oliver, 257, 275, 278, 499, 333 U.S. 68 S.Ct. acy to justice continuing obstruct to the up 500, Thus, too, 92 recent L.Ed. 682. the very end. conspiracy If such in fact ex- Procedure, Federal Rules of Criminal while isted continued, punish- and thus the then contempt recognizing summary power, ment was deserved mild. and indeed extraordinary indicate character of that But notwithstanding provocation remedy prescribe safeguards and elaborate conclude, thus to is not a matter this hearing punishment of notice and before complete demonstration from acts alone. contempt. Federal Rules of usual At the any conspiracy 'basis of is the intent Procedure, 42, Criminal rule 18 U.S.C.A. parties; accept if the court refuses Against no countervailing this find testimony this, deliberately it is clos-
precedent
negative
the conclusion that
eyes
ing its
important
This,
evidence.
unique judgment
summary
this is a
con
therefore,
surely
requiring
a matter
tempt.
This
clearer
is shown the
con hearing
reception
for the
proffered
tes-
sidering
spe
the time intervals between the
timony.
charged
imposi
summary
cific acts
and
But
alternative,
tion of
In some cases the acts
other
punish
sentence.
eight
more
occurred
than
months before
ment here
be considered visited on the
judgment and involved occurrences before
acts,
individual
great.
involves a dilemma as
n
the trial
opening
proper.
only
There
practical
difficulties
hand,
against
charged
other
acts
last
judge’s
own statement
that he was
lawyer appellants
respectively
over punishing 'for the conspiracy rather
than
months,
months,
four
over two
a month and
might
for acts which
well be considered as
half, month,
and a month
before the
trial,
making
due to the heat of the
and
sentencing date.1The
contrast
'between
penalties,
sense out of his distribution of
these
intervals
extremely
time
and the
short
except upon
conspiracy.3
his own rationale of
periods of even the more drastic cases re
difficulty
here
is also the legal
on
great
lied
point
on is so
as to
its own moral.2 T
brought
pronounced
soon as he was
before
14,
the court
1. Sentence was
October
day.
contempt
(the
And in Middlebrook
1949.
The last
act
1876,
257,
State,
Am.Rep.
during
proper) charged
v.
21
sole
43 Conn.
one
the trial
650,
days
elapsed
against
appellant
sixteen
while
be
McCabe occurred
contempt
against
judgment,
Isserman, August 3,
tween the
and
June
against
jurisdiction
August
Gladstein,
26,
against
imme
fled the
defendant had
'
diately
committing
contemptu
Crockett, September
after
Sacher
14. The
charged
intervening
contempt
against
acts
time was
ous
last
the non-
spent
trying
bring
custody.
lawyer
appellant, Dennis,
in
him into
occurred
True,
discover
can
no statement of
October 4.
Cary, 1925,
exact
time interval
in
165
Re
single
ease,
Maury,
In the
federal
2.
re
402;
203, 206 N.W.
Minn.
but such state
626,
1913,
Cir.,
205 F.
defendant was
power
as that
“must be
ments
exer
contempt
morning following
in
held
promptly,
all,”
cised
exorcised at
complained
the acts
after
parte Terry,
Ex
the reliance
speak
was allowed to
in his
own de-
289,
leading
465 301; above, quite 90 L.Ed. v. since 66 S.Ct. Anderson to the referred precedents 204, Dunn, 204, being U.S. and was 6 Wheat. 19 5 L.Ed. obviously trial this processes orderly proceed to an more did in notice up, not broken fact hearing employed. If conclusion, with, indeed, ap- must be orderly what immediately punish if acted pears improved judge to attitude at least to sum- be an had marily contempts, he be what to he drying up untoward incidents deemed responsible would have done so as a deci- test.4 him; upon apparent sion to then need suggested Certain are not be- answers thereupon and the issue which would adequate. Thus lieved to be it has been presented been reviewing court to a would pre- suggested that this unusual case was an have been quite different from that be- now senting unusual This indeed situations. appropriate It fore us. does not seem to me be the moment the must From conceded. try speculate or fruitful to now to we how planned prosecution try many so defend- to might then have point decided. The is that together nature, charge ants a of this it otherwise, actually decided obvious to all most naive —in- but the perspicacity may with if we conclude from early freely newspaper deed stated in post- outcome. Since decide did he argument-— comments referred to in action, pone our must be review centered difficult, extraordinarily that trial would be legal consequences decision burdens, put mildly. whether But such light in the the precedents; these are not not, justify hardly change a foreseen or can properly reshaped be or spec- reversed summary procedure. for the law more ulation as to might a different course he might hoped-for One even believe that have taken. gains prosecution 'from kind would to a lost unless too, amounted demonstra- suggested, It the hearing processes, op- of how legal tion (which 42(h), American under Rule Federal Rules of erating fashion, ordinary unwarped Procedure, Criminal should be before an- justice. could accomplish nevertheless judge, contempt other charged since the disrespect “involves criticism of a Again suggested it has been that since the judge” disqualifies and thus sit- him from summarily could have acted except ting consent) dispensed each time of incident should not lose the produce with because it will the same result right by delaying to save trial. But present has the proceeding. proc- Due above, law correctly this is a stated ess, however, hearing to accords a those begging question. of the The matter is one clearly guilty believed to be as well as to not of honoring judge’s patience, but of acquittal. those having possibility of good the course set for the cir- law Moreover, on the issue which has become they actually cumstances as exist. Sum- conspiracy crucial —that aof to obstruct mary punishment contempt is not a justice do not see how we can be sure. right judge, of the the exercise of which he —I Upon such an issue matter intent may postpone. It extraordinary is an ex- large; indeed, looms so the whole ception process law, justified due as to difference between acts done in urgent needs the moment. When hardly or cold blood can hot fail to take on a passes, need this drastic action significance light different of testi- power passes; so to act also and consonant mony, subjected proper cross-examina- the long-standing mandate use “the tion, parties purposes, possible power adequate least to the end agreed preparation trial proposed,” Michael, re 326 U.S. charged conspiracy. So McCabe’s nine appellant more acts occurred in the first charged (see participation limited in acts five months of these nine-month proceed- supra) might ings punish- note make before the start of the trial —twelve seem ment drastic he was in unless fact during ten cited proper. acts eoeonspirator. last four months trial appear to be less serious nature than time intervals forth in See set note earlier supra. twenty-nine thirty- So acts. justly. proceedings We must 'bear order the what was not discussed. again charge hearing upon -charges as over remanded -for that over and *47 mind pressing colloquy judge. with the outlined the certificate of the consists participated judge- —-to —-in exasperation. how point do not see obviously all
we can conclude of each planned before the -start
a matter Moreover,
colloquy. the issue was not conspir- existence of the
alone that of the
acy, participation each in but also of hearing necessary
one proven. A quite degrees guilt; settle the least to v. PAULLY MAGNOTTI. possibly result in much heavier it would No. Docket 21637. actually given. penalties some than were prereq- seems to me a hearing therefore Appeals A United States Court of law. Second punishment uisite to as a matter of Circuit. -further, however, would go Argued May 4, 1950. -evidence, hearing, wholly full de- May 29, Decided we policy. wise What seek sirable.on decorous, benign proper, administration promoted justice. Were be here, I, too, condign punishment should reshape hesitant law to make it
want to
possible. profoundly But because I believe here, hasty hindered action
that it will be prece- stick the -ancient find it wiser to back what -go
dents. I said earlier that inexorable, should be but not vin- law wisely permit cannot officers
dictive. We lightly justice; to traduce
of the court
on the other hand we cannot afford over- responsibility providing
load the sa-cred
adequate point all to the where defense practically cannot It be fulfilled. is no difficulty that the securing
secret counsel adequately unpopular minority
to defend
groups -great, and indeed acute in non-
metropolitan hand, districts. theOn other upon counsel as a part
the insistence element of a trial
constitutional fair is more
pronounced, stated, precisely more each There
judicial approaching be term. that trial cannot had with- dilemma counsel, yet can
out none found job.
the burdensome Between the two im-
portant demands it tous walk cir- behooves
cumspectly. know of no wiser course proceed deliberately according
than to developed wisdom of the law as other ti-mes, less perhaps emotional and to judgment
approach punishment deliber-
ately, surely that course the -but more