In re Kraut
| Decision Date | 04 October 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1108.,88-1108. |
| Citation | 580 A.2d 1305 |
| Parties | In re Nina KRAUT, Appellant. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
John W. Karr, with whom William G. McLain, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mary B. Murphy, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Jay B. Stephens, U.S. Atty., and John R. Fisher, and Helen M. Bollwerk, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before FERREN and STEADMAN, Associate Judges, and KERN, Senior Judge.
The trial judge summarily convicted attorney Nina Kraut of criminal contempt of court. Super.Ct.Crim.R. 42(a).1 He cited three reasons: (1) Kraut repeatedly interrupted the judge; (2) in seeking to withdraw from representing one of two co-defendants because of a conflict, Kraut refused the judge's request to provide "the necessary information" in writing, including her fee arrangement with the client, so the court could "determine possible CJA eligibility" for appointment of counsel; and (3) she referred to this request as "absurd." Three days after orally holding Kraut in contempt and fining her $250, the judge filed a written "summary contempt ruling" which both certified that the contemptuous conduct "was committed in the actual presence of the Court" and recited the facts underlying the earlier judgment, as required by Rule 42(a), supra note 1. Within thirty days of that filing, Kraut noted her appeal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient for conviction.
A motions division of this court, in an unpublished order, sustained the timeliness of Kraut's notice of appeal filed thirty-one days after the hearing but only twenty-eight days after the trial court filed its written ruling. See D.C.App.R. 4(b)(1) (). We have revisited this issue. See District of Columbia v. Trustees of Amherst College, 499 A.2d 918, 920 (D.C.1985) (). We conclude that the thirty-day appeal period does not begin until all the requirements of Rule 42(a) have been met. Because Kraut filed her appeal twenty-eight days after the required Rule 42(a) certification and recital of facts were entered of record, see supra note 1, her appeal was timely filed.
As to the merits, we conclude the record does not support the trial judge's finding that Kraut refused to supply all the "necessary information" requested by the judge. Accordingly, because the judge cited three grounds for contempt, because the judge indicated that all three were integral to his ruling, and because one of them fails for lack of evidentiary support, we must reverse the conviction and order dismissal of the charge.2
On July 26, 1988, appellant Kraut represented two criminal defendants at a status hearing in Superior Court: Prissie Williams-Godfrey (also known as Delores Blair) and Tobey Whitted. Three separate cases were pending against Williams-Godfrey; one was pending against Whitted. The government announced it would be willing to dismiss the charges against Whitted if the court granted its recently-filed motion to consolidate the three cases against Williams-Godfrey. Kraut immediately interjected that her dual representation now created a conflict of interest: as counsel to Williams-Godfrey, she intended to oppose the motion to consolidate, but, in doing so, she would be acting against the interests of Whitted. As a result, she concluded she no longer could represent them both. She asked Judge Wolf to grant her leave to withdraw from Whitted's case and to appoint counsel to represent him. The judge agreed that Whitted needed separate counsel, and he began to consider what steps he should take before he could appoint counsel.
At this juncture, Judge Wolf and Kraut engaged in the following discussion of Kraut's fee arrangement with her two clients:
When the judge returned to the bench, he immediately summoned Kraut, and they had the following exchange:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BROOKS v. U.S.
...trial judge was at once prosecutor, fact finder, and sole witness, require this court to undertake de novo review.3 See In re Kraut, 580 A.2d 1305, 1311 (D.C. 1990) (noting that "because of the inherent danger in one person's performing the potentially conflicting roles of prosecutor, judge......
-
BETHARD v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
...made by two of her colleagues in recent summary contempt cases we have decided. See, In re L.G., 639 A.2d 603 (D.C. 1994); In re Kraut, 580 A.2d 1305 (D.C. 1990). In both L.G. and Kraut, the trial court imposed summary contempt based on three separate incidents or grounds. In both cases we ......
-
In re Curtis
...Under our case law, we cannot affirm Mr. Curtis's conviction unless all three statements violated the CPO. See, e.g. , In re Kraut , 580 A.2d 1305, 1313-14 (D.C. 1990) (reversing where trial court based single count of contempt on three grounds and evidence was insufficient as to at least o......
-
In re LG
...this court examines "the evidence underlying these ... reasons to ascertain what conduct constituted the contempt." In re Kraut, 580 A.2d 1305, 1312 (D.C.1990) (internal quotation and citation Judge Ryan relied on three separate grounds, italicized above, for summarily adjudging L.G. in con......