Baumgartner v. Joughin

• Decision Date: 26 April 1932
• Parties: BAUMGARTNER v. JOUGHIN, Sheriff.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

141 So. 185

105 Fla. 335

BAUMGARTNER v. JOUGHIN, Sheriff.

Florida Supreme Court

April 26, 1932

En Banc.

Original habeas corpus proceedings by E. Baumgartner against R. T Joughin, Sheriff of Hillsborough County, Florida.

Petitioner remanded.

BUFORD C.J., dissenting.

COUNSEL

Dickenson & Lake, of Tampa, for petitioner.

Charles F. Blake, of Tampa, for respondent.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In this case a majority of the court are of the opinion that the petitioner should be remanded to custody under the commitment issued by Hon. L. L. Parks, judge of the circuit court holding the petitioner guilty of contempt of court for improperly approaching a prospective juror.

It appears from the record that certain jurors had been drawn and summoned for duty at a trial term of the circuit court for Hillsborough county; that one of the cases to be tried at such term was that of State of Florida v. Louis Leavine, for murder; that amongst those drawn and served for jury duty was a venireman, Frank McWayne, who thereafter appeared in court in response to the summons; that prior to the juror's appearance in court the petitioner approached the said Frank McWayne, knowing that he had been drawn to serve on the jury during the week commencing February 29, 1932, and knowing that the case of State of Florida v. Louis Leavine for murder would be called for trial during that time, said to him 'You have been drawn on the jury, I see. * * * Would you be interested in a proposition, a pretty good proposition?' That just prior to this that petitioner had come up to the prospective juror's store in an automobile to buy cigars and, in connection with the conversation just quoted, had by way of beginning conversation, dropped the remark that he knew Louis Leavine, who was to be tried for murder, but that Louis was not a bad boy, but that it was his brother Wilbur who was the wild one.

The circuit judge, upon being apprised of the incident, cited petitioner for contempt. Subsequently after a hearing the judge committed him to the county jail for sixty days. The case is here upon habeas corpus seking petitioner's discharge from that commitment.

Section 5439, Comp. Gen. Laws section 3575, Rev. Gen. St., provides that in habeas corpus cases: 'When, on the return of the writ, the cause of detention shall appear to have been a contempt, plainly and specifically charge in the commitment by some court officer or body having authority to commit for the contempt so charged and for the time stated, it shall be the duty of the court or judge before whom the writ is returnable forthwith to remand the prisoner, if the time for detention for contempt has not expired.'

In the instant case the return exhibits the following order of the circuit judge as the cause of petitioner's detention:

'This cause coming on to be heard before this Court upon a Rule Nisi duly served upon the Respondent, E. Baumartner, and he appearing in Court, in person, with his counsel, Paul Lake, Esq., and Chester Ferguson, Esq., and the respondent, together with his counsel being in court during a full hearing of this matter and during the entering and reading to the respondent of this judgment and finding of this Court, and the Court having heard the testimony in the matter and having read the answer or return filed by the respondent, and the Court having further offered to allow the respondent the privilege of cross-examining the witnesses adduced against him, and further allowed the respondent to introduce such testimony by witnesses as he might think proper, and respondent having failed to avail himself of either cross-examination of witnesses against him or presenting witnesses to testify in his favor, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, finds, orders and adjudges that the allegations set forth in the Rule Nisi filed in this cause, and issued by this Court, have been proven and substantiated by the evidence.

'It is further found, ordered and adjudged that the said E. Baumgartner did, as set forth in the rule to show cause issued in this matter, attempt to corrupt a juror drawn to serve in this cause, to-wit: Frank McWayne, after the said juror had been served with a summons to serve herein, and with full knowledge of the fact that the said juror had been summoned to serve in this cause, by attempting to influence the decision of said juror and by inquiring of said Frank McWayne if the said McWayne would be interested in a proposition with reference to said trial of Louis Leavine for the murder of Joe B. Johnson, by reason of which facts, which the Court finds to be true, the Court finds, orders and adjudges that the said E. Baumgartner, respondent, is guilty of contempt against this Court. * * *'

Attached to the petition for writ of habeas corpus is a full transcript of the proceedings and testimony upon which the order of commitment was made, so that the whole record embracing all the proceedings, as well as the order of commitment, is now before the court.

The essential characteristic of an alleged act of contempt, such as that here charged, is its tendency to obstruct the administration of justice. Such a contempt does not depend so much upon the particular intent of the contemnor as upon his act. And while a mere intent to commit a contempt cannot make an act contempt, unless the act done actually tends to obstruct the administration of justice, whether or not an act constitutes a contempt of court is determined by the reasonable tendencies of the act to obstruct the administration of justice. Ex parte Savin, 131 U.S. 267, 9 S.Ct. 699, 33 L.Ed. 150; Sinclair v. U. S., 279 U.S. 749, 49 S.Ct. 471, 73 L.Ed. 938, 63 A. L. R. 1258.

Due process of law in the prosecution of contempt, except that committed in open court, requires that the accused should be advised of the charges against him and have a reasonable opportunity to meet them by way of defense or explanation. This includes the right to assistance of counsel, if requested, and the right to call witnesses to give testimony, relevant either to the issue of complete exculpation or in extenuation of the offense, and in mitigation of the penalty to be imposed. Cooke v. U. S., 267 U.S. 517, 45 S.Ct. 390, 69 L.Ed. 767.

The rule just stated was strictly followed in the case at bar. Hence, the only point left to be decided by us is whether or not the whole record now before the court discloses an act of contempt, plainly and specifically charged in the commitment and supported by the proceedings upon which the contempt judgment is based. If it does, the petitioner must be remanded. Ex parte Turner, 73 Fla. 360, 74 So. 314, L. R. A. 1917D, 355; Ex parte Earman, 85 Fla. 297, 95 So. 755, 31 A. L. R. 1226.

Trial by capable juries is the bulwark of the administration of the criminal law. Exercise of calm, unbiased, and informed judgment is essential to proper functioning of juries, and without it the administration of justice in cases requiring jury trials is grievously impaired if not wholly defeated.

From time immemorial the right to trial by jury has been regarded as one of the most sacred heritages of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. The fundamental law recognizes the jury as an appendage of the court, and that it is indispensable as an agency to pass upon guilt or innocence of the accused in criminal cases. Consequently the jury is of unusual importance as an administrative factor in the American judicial systems, whether state or federal.

Therefore, whatever tends to obstruct the due administration of justice in the courts, by bringing undue influences or temptations or corruption to bear upon those who are likely to be selected for duty on juries, is an act calculated to obstruct the fair and impartial trial of jury cases in the courts, and as such, is a direct obstruction to the proper administration of justice which is punishable as a contempt.

Tampering with a member of a general jury panel, or with members of a jury panel selected to try a case, or with prospective jurors before they are sworn, is universally...