United States v. Cutler case brief summary
58 F.3d 825 (1995)
Defendant attorney appealed a decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, finding defendant guilty of criminal contempt, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 401(3), and sentencing him to 90 days' house arrest and three years' probation, and also suspending him from practicing law in the Eastern District of New York for 180 days, in his violation of U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D.N.Y., Crim. R. 7.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed defendant attorney's conviction for criminal contempt on the grounds that his constitutional challenge was collaterally barred because he failed to challenge the orders and rule in issue by appealing them. In addition, the evidence amply supported his conviction.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
58 F.3d 825 (1995)
Defendant attorney appealed a decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, finding defendant guilty of criminal contempt, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 401(3), and sentencing him to 90 days' house arrest and three years' probation, and also suspending him from practicing law in the Eastern District of New York for 180 days, in his violation of U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D.N.Y., Crim. R. 7.
CASE FACTS
The lower court found defendant attorney guilty of criminal
contempt, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 401(3) and
sentenced him to 90 days' house arrest and three years' probation,
and also suspended him from practicing law in the Eastern District of
New York for 180 days. Notwithstanding the lower court's pre-trial
admonition and orders to comply with U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D.N.Y., Crim.
R. 7, defendant had spoken repeatedly and heatedly to the media on
the merits of the government's case against his client.DISCUSSION
- On appeal, defendant argued that:
- (1) the orders and Local Rule 7 were unconstitutional;
- (2) the evidence, under the heightened standard applicable in U.S. Constitutional Amendment I cases, did not support his contempt conviction; and
- (3) several aspects of his sentence were an abuse of discretion.
- The court held that because defendant could have challenged the orders (and Local Rule 7) by appealing them, or seeking a writ of mandamus or declaratory relief, his constitutional challenge was collaterally barred.
- Moreover, the evidence amply supported his conviction. Finally, although aspects of his probation gave the court pause, the court would not disturb his sentence. The court affirmed.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed defendant attorney's conviction for criminal contempt on the grounds that his constitutional challenge was collaterally barred because he failed to challenge the orders and rule in issue by appealing them. In addition, the evidence amply supported his conviction.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
No comments:
Post a Comment