Chandler v. Garrison, Civ. A. No. 67-1545.
| Decision Date | 09 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 67-1545. |
| Citation | 286 F. Supp. 18 |
| Parties | David L. CHANDLER v. Jim GARRISON et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Cicero C. Sessions, Robert E. Winn, Sessions, Fishman, Rosenson, Snellings & Boisfontaine, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff.
James L. Alcock, Numa V. Bertel, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, for defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF REASONS
On November 7, 1967, a three-judge court was constituted to hear the case of Chandler v. Garrison, et al, in which plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants from calling him before the Orleans Parish Grand Jury. In this suit plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of several articles of the Louisiana Criminal Code and the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure. On March 11, 1968, the three-judge court handed down an opinion, D.C., 286 F.Supp. 191, in which it held that the defendants should be enjoined from enforcing the Grand Jury subpoena. However, in reaching this decision, the court did not find it necessary to decide on the constitutionality of the Louisiana laws attacked by the plaintiff. Since this case was disposed of without reaching the serious constitutional questions raised by the plaintiff, the three-judge court dissolved itself and returned the case to this court for further handling.
On March 14, 1968, the plaintiff moved that defendant Jim Garrison show cause why he should not be held in contempt for statements which he allegedly made on March 13, 1968, on which date plaintiff alleges that Garrison said that the three-judge court reached its decision in the Chandler case by direction of unnamed officers of the Federal Government as a part of a Federal conspiracy to aid Life Magazine in withholding certain evidence from the defendant.
The only question now before us is whether these contempt proceedings should be heard by this court alone or by the three-judge court which decided the original case and which was dissolved by its own hand on March 11, 1968.
Only one case has touched on the question of whether a three-judge court should preside over contempt proceedings arising out of a case which was previously before it. In O'Malley v. United States, 128 F.2d 676 (8th Cir., 1942), reversed on other grounds, 317 U.S. 412, 63 S.Ct. 268, 87 L.Ed. 368 (1943), 137 injunction suits were brought by 139 insurance companies against the Superintendent of Insurance and the Attorney General of the State of Missouri to protect a proposed increase in premium rates for fire, windstorm and hail insurance. After the three-judge court was constituted to hear these suits, the insurance companies and some Missouri public officials conspired together and agreed that the insurance companies and the Missouri officials would enter into a fake settlement of the suits, whereby the interests of policy holders would be sacrificed in favor of the insurance companies. Three Missouri public officials were paid large bribes for their part in this matter. The three officials then had their attorneys (who were ignorant of the fraud) present to the court the fake settlement as a genuine, good-faith settlement by antagonistic litigants. This representation constituted the contempt which was committed in the presence of the three-judge court. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that since the three-judge court had jurisdiction over the suits which were before it, "it had inherent power to punish for the contemptuous misbehavior in its presence * * *" 128 F.2d at 687. But the court went on to place more emphasis on the argument that even if the three-judge court was not the proper court to have presided over the contempt proceedings, this was harmless error since the holding of that court was unanimous and one of the judges who sat on the court would have handled the matter if the three judge court had not heard it. For this reason the court held that even if these contempt proceedings should have been heard by one judge, "the presence of the others did not invalidate the judgment nor prejudice appellants." 128 F.2d at 687. Because of the uncertainty expressed by the Eighth Circuit in this decision, we do not feel that the O'Malley case may properly be used as a strong guide to be followed in this area.
Normally the court trying a particular case is the proper court to hear contempt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamilton v. Nakai
...of the Brashear case in other areas of law. See Willis v. Pickrick Restaurant, N.D.Ga., 1964, 234 F.Supp. 179; cf. Chandler v. Garrison, E.D.La., 1968, 286 F.Supp. 18. In Willis the court held that a civil contempt proceeding ancillary to suit prosecuted under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 s......
-
Jafree, Matter of
...(5th Cir.1969) (each judge in a multi-district court has the same powers and authority as each other judge). See also Chandler v. Garrison, 286 F.Supp. 18, 20 (E.D.La.1968) (although holding that three-judge court would exceed its authority to try contempt proceeding because the court had a......
- Gulf Insurance Company v. Dooley
-
In re Veit
...488 (S.D.N.Y.1994) (holding that a motion for contempt should be brought before the court that issued the order); Chandler v. Garrison, 286 F.Supp. 18 (E.D.La.1968) (stating that normally, the court trying a particular case is the proper court to hear contempt proceedings arising out of tha......