Michaels v. State, 3D00-917.
| Citation | 773 So.2d 1230 |
| Decision Date | 13 December 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D00-917.,3D00-917. |
| Parties | Alexander MICHAELS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Kenneth P. Speiller, Miami, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Barbara A. Zappi, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before GODERICH and SORONDO, JJ., and NESBITT, Senior Judge.
Alexander Michaels appeals from the trial court's judgment and sentence for direct criminal contempt.
During the trial of Ulysses Sidney Morris, Michaels, his defense counsel, was admonished by the court on several occasions to refrain from making speaking objections. After several warnings, defense counsel again began voicing his objections and concerns in front of the jury. The jury was excused and the trial court instructed Michaels to show good cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for his behavior.
In an explosive outburst, Michaels stated that he believed the court was biased against his client and criminal defendants in general.1 Michaels asserted that his allegedly contumacious statements were in response to the court's question to him, which put him in the position of being embarrassed before the jury and was unfair.
The court found Michaels in direct criminal contempt, placed him on probation for six months, and ordered that he take six hours of continuing legal education in ethics, refrain from violating court rulings and act in a professional manner consistent with the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The trial judge had made her feelings known on the subject of speaking objections during the course of jury selection. At some point during voir dire examination it became necessary to examine certain jurors individually. Michaels was allowed to ask questions first. He was followed by the prosecutor. During one such examination Michaels asked for leave to ask additional questions after the prosecutor was finished. His request was denied and the following exchange between Michaels and the court occurred:
(Emphasis added). This exchange took place in the presence of the juror being questioned. Immediately after the juror was excused from the courtroom the judge returned to the subject:
(Emphasis added). It is clear, therefore, that from the very beginning of the trial, even before the opening statements were delivered, the trial judge made it absolutely clear that she would not tolerate speaking objections. As the judge observed, all trial lawyers know that so-called speaking...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnnides v. Amoco Oil Co., Inc.
...of doing so—have found it appropriate to make such a referral about a lawyer's conduct in litigation, e.g., Michaels v. State, 773 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Afrazeh v. Miami Elevator Co., 769 So.2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Visoly v. Security Pacific Credit Corp., 768 So.2d 482 (Fla. 3d ......
-
Michaels v. Loftus
...We review such orders on an abuse of discretion standard. Rudolph v. State, 832 So.2d 826, 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Michaels v. State, 773 So.2d 1230, 1232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Thomas v. State, 752 So.2d 679, 685 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (“We undertake review of the order of direct criminal contem......
-
Michaels v. Loftus
...We review such orders on an abuse of discretion standard. Rudolph v. State, 832 So. 2d 826, 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Michaels v. State, 773 So. 2d 1230, 1232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Thomas v. State, 752 So. 2d 679, 685 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) ("We undertake review of the order of direct criminal con......
-
Lafferty v. Stevens Memorial Hospital,, No. 56313-1-I (Wash. App. 12/26/2006), No. 56313-1-I
...No Washington case has specifically defined or discussed speaking objections. The Hospital cites a Florida case, Michaels v. State, 773 So. 2d 1230, (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000).10 Below, the Hospital argued that it was prejudiced when in the context of making several objections Laffterys' co......