DC CIRCUIT FINDS CONTEMPT FOR USE OF PROFANITY

The issue of criminal contempt was raised in a case before the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia.

The defendant ¹ was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to twenty-six years imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. Following the sentencing the court held a hearing and sentenced him to an additional three years since the murder was a violation of a supervised release in a prior drug case. At the end of the hearing the defendant said “Fuck y’all” so that the judge and everyone else in the courtroom could hear him/her. The judge immediately sentenced the defendant to one year for criminal contempt, consecutive to the murder and drug sentences. A judge can summarily punish contempt if it is done in the judge’s presence and the judge witnesses or hears the contempt.

“Criminal contempt includes misbehavior of any person in [the court's] presence or so near
thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice.” The defendant appealed. He/she claimed that, while, he/she misbehaved, he/she did not obstruct justice and if he/she obstructed justice he/she did not do it with the required intent to do so. The defendant claims that he/she did not obstruct justice because the profanity was issued after the hearing was over. The court found that it is immaterial when the statement was said.
Whether it was during the hearing or after the hearing it showed disrespect for the court and therefore the judge was correct in finding contempt.

In support of the court’s finding the Circuit Court quoted the First Circuit Court of Appeals’ statement that:

One must appreciate that courtrooms, especially in criminal cases, are theaters of extreme emotion—stoked by the facts of the alleged crimes, the tensions of striving lawyers and hostile cross examination, and the fearsome stakes.Every trial judge knows how easy it is for matters to get out of hand. Indeed, the black robe, the call “all rise,” and the deference exacted by judges have their main warrant in the need for order. By its tendency to undermine order, a party’s deliberate cursing of a judge in open court can depending on the circumstances readily be viewed as obstructive.

But it is exactly because the extremely emotional and tense situation in a courtroom that some leeway must be granted, particularly when a jury is not present. People, at least those who, unlike lawyers, judges and judicial staff, do not spend their lives in courtrooms tend at times to say things they might regret later. These statements are often spontaneous ² and said without thinking.

The Circuit Court reduced the sentence to six months since six months is the maximum that a defendant can be sentenced without waiving his/her right to a jury trial.