In the Matter of Ellis, 5103.
Decision Date | 20 April 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 5103.,5103. |
Citation | 264 A.2d 300 |
Parties | In the Matter of James N. ELLIS. |
Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Quin Denvir, Washington, D. C., for appellant. J. Dean Heller and Woodley B. Osborne, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for appellant.
Leo N. Gorman, Asst. Corp. Counsel, with whom Charles T. Duncan, Corp. Counsel, Hubert B. Pair, Principal Asst. Corp. Counsel, and Richard W. Barton, Asst. Corp. Counsel, were on the brief, for appellee.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and GALLAGHER and NEBEKER, Associate Judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment holding Ellis in contempt of court "for shouting and banging [his] fist on [the] bench" during the trial of a civil action in which Ellis appeared as defendant.1 The litigation arose over a dispute about Ellis' right to possession of certain papers alleged to belong to the plaintiff. When the case was called for trial, Ellis appeared without counsel. After being advised of the desirability of having an attorney, Ellis decided to proceed pro se.2
In reviewing appellant's conduct, the contemptuous acts must be interpreted in light of the surrounding circumstances at that time.3 If it reflects that appellant "overstep[ped] the bounds of propriety and refuse[d] to heed the admonitions of the court or to obey in the presence of the court a lawful order of the court, he commit[ted] an act of contempt." Jones v. United States, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 109, 110, 151 F.2d 289, 290 (1945). (Emphasis supplied.)
The record reflects a two-stage trial. At the first hearing, appellant was questioned concerning possession and the location of correspondence relating to plaintiff's grievance before the postal authorities. Appellant had consulted with plaintiff about the grievance and plaintiff asserted he had given appellant the disputed documents. Appellant's replies were not responsive and patently evasive to the repeated attempts of the court and plaintiff's counsel to establish whether he had the papers. A typical example of the court's comments which demonstrate the context in which contempt was adjudicated is helpful: Later on the trial judge found it necessary to instruct Ellis: * * *" It is apparent from reading the record that repeated attempts to establish the location of the papers were met with evasive answers or comments calculated to avoid requested direct answers. The court then ordered service of a subpoena duces tecum on appellant and continued the trial for 18 days.
Upon commencement of the second hearing, counsel for plaintiff asked appellant:
[A pause.]
An attorney was then called from the criminal branch of the court and appellant was advised of the consequences of his failure to obey a direction of the court. The following colloquy ensued:
The attorney appointed by the court then asked and was permitted to address the court. He spoke of the merits of the suit and advised the court that he had apprised Ellis of his duty to obey the court's order to deliver the documents to plaintiff's counsel and of the possible penalty and appellate remedies. The following then transpired:
After selecting a convenient date for plaintiff's counsel, the following occurred:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
BROOKS v. U.S.
...an appellant's contemptuous acts 'in light of the surrounding circumstances,' " Bethard, supra, 650 A.2d at 653 (quoting In re Ellis, 264 A.2d 300, 301 (D.C. 1970)), gleaning those circumstances from the trial transcript, the contemporaneous recording of the proceedings, and thetrial court'......
-
Swisher v. US
...charges, see Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 306-07, 9 S.Ct. 77, 80, 32 L.Ed. 405 (1888), or to representation by counsel, In re Ellis, 264 A.2d 300, 305 (D.C.1970), the government argues that the trial judge's conduct of the proceedings in the present case was entirely We recognize, however,......
-
In the Matter of Gorfkle
...States, supra; United States v. Landes, 97 F.2d 378 (2d Cir. 1938); and disobeying a valid court order or directive, e.g., In re Ellis, D.C.App., 264 A.2d 300 (1970); United States v. Berger, 145 F.2d 888 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 324 U.S. 848, 65 S.Ct. 685, 89 L.Ed. 1408 (1944). Common to a......
-
BETHARD v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
...444 A.2d at 940 (footnote omitted). We review an appellant's contemptuous acts "in light of thesurrounding circumstances." In re Ellis, 264 A.2d 300, 301 (D.C. 1970). If the evidence shows that by his or her conduct an appellant " 'overstep[ped] the bounds of propriety and refuse[d] to heed......