Offutt v. United States, 11466.

Decision Date19 November 1953
Docket NumberNo. 11466.,11466.
Citation208 F.2d 842
PartiesOFFUTT v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Mr. Warren E. Magee, New York City, with whom Miss Charlotte Maskey, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. William J. Peck, Asst. U. S. Atty. at time of argument, with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Arthur J. McLaughlin, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee. Messrs. Charles M. Irelan, U. S. Atty., Joseph M. Howard, William E. Kirk, Jr., and William R. Glendon, Asst. U. S. Attys., at time record was filed, entered appearances for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, BAZELON and FAHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On the trial of Henry L. Peckham, Jr., under the abortion statute of the District of Columbia, Dorsey K. Offutt, Esq., was defense counsel. At the end of the trial the presiding judge summarily found Offutt guilty of criminal contempt of court and ordered him committed for 10 days to the custody of the United States Marshal. Offutt appeals from that order. We quote from the order:

"Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 18 U.S.C.A., I hereby certify that I saw and heard the contempts of court hereinafter described, and that they were committed by Dorsey K. Offutt in the actual presence of the court during the trial of a criminal proceeding before me entitled, United States v. Henry L. Peckham, Jr. * * *
"I find that said Offutt was guilty of the following breaches of decorum and offensive, contumacious, and unethical conduct in open court during the trial; and that said breaches and course of conduct constituted contempt of court. * * *
"1. On numerous occasions, he made insolent, insulting and offensive remarks to the court, and was guilty of gross discourtesy to the court. * * *
"2. On numerous occasions, he persisted in repeating questions, previously excluded by the court, in order to evade the court\'s rulings, in spite of admonitions by the court to the contrary. Many of these questions were obviously intended to besmirch a witness. * * *
"3. On numerous occasions he persisted in talking boisterously after the court had made a ruling, and failed to desist when ordered to do so by the court, at times even continuing to talk while the court was speaking. * * *
"4. On numerous occasions he used a boisterous, belligerent, discourteous and offensive tone of voice in addressing the court. * * *
"5. On several occasions, he made false statements to the court, which he could not help knowing to be untrue, particularly concerning what the court had done or said. * * *
"6. On several occasions he asked of witnesses questions that were highly prejudicial to the witness and for which there was no foundation. Thus, he asked Mary Ott, the victim of the abortions charged against the defendant, `When were you arrested in this case?\' As a matter of fact she never had been arrested and when called to account by the court, Offutt only answered that he had a right to enquire whether the witness had been arrested in this case. * * *
"8. On numerous occasions, he created a noise and commotion in the courtroom by boisterous interruptions and irrelevant remarks, such as objecting to a quiet conversation between two spectators in the courtroom, one of whom had been a witness in the case. * * *
"11. He abused the process of the court by issuing a subpoena duces tecum to the mother of Mary Ott, and
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • In re Dellinger
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • December 6, 1973
    ...Seale, 461 F.2d at 361-364. See Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 537, 45 S.Ct. 390, 69 L.Ed. 767 (1925); Offutt v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 148, 208 F.2d 842, 843 (1953). Therefore, this Court must now consider the extent to which the conduct of the trial judge and prosecuting at......
  • United States v. Meyer, 24058.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • January 20, 1972
    ...reduced the sentence to 48 hours, viewing his conduct in the light of the trial judge's own provocations. See Offutt v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 148, 208 F.2d 842 (1954). The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the exercise of its "`supervisory authority over the administration of cri......
  • In the Matter of Gorfkle
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • April 6, 1982
    ...or improper remarks directed toward the trial judge, e.g., In re Gates, D.C.App., 248 A.2d 671 (1968); Offutt v. United States, 93 U.S. App.D.C. 148, 208 F.2d 842 (1953), rev'd on other grounds, 348 U.S. 11, 75 S.Ct. 11, 99 L.Ed. 11 (1954); Sacher v. United States, supra; In re Buckley, 10 ......
  • Ungar, Matter of
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • July 3, 1978
    ...adverse party and, thus, is calculated to impede, obstruct or distort the administration of justice. Offutt v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 148, 149, 208 F.2d 842, 843 (D.C.Cir.1953), rev'd on other grounds, 348 U.S. 11, 75 S.Ct. 11, 99 L.Ed. 11 (1954) (misconduct included asking question......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT