U.S. v. O'Quinn

Decision Date19 September 1990
Docket NumberNo. 90-2303,90-2303
Citation913 F.2d 221
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John M. O'QUINN, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Michael E. Tigar, Austin, Tex., Stephen D. Susman, E. Lawrence Vincent, Susman & Godfrey, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

Paula Offenhauser, John R. Braddock, Asst. U.S. Attys., Henry K. Oncken, U.S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before GARZA, JOLLY, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

John M. O'Quinn, appeals his conviction of criminal contempt for sleeping in Judge Melinda Harmon's jury room during a break in a trial in Judge David Hittner's court. Judge Hittner imposed a sentence of indefinite unsupervised probation, provided O'Quinn serve 10 days in the Harris County jail on consecutive weekends. The court stated that it would set aside the jail time if O'Quinn paid a $500 fine by noon the next day and performed sixty hours of community service under the supervision of the United States Probation Office, at the rate of not less than five hours per month. O'Quinn paid the fine and filed a timely notice of appeal. This court stayed his sentence pending appeal. O'Quinn has presented six points of error to this court. We decide only that there was no willful violation of a clear and unambiguous order. We do not decide any of O'Quinn's other points of error. Because Judge Hittner abused his contempt power we REVERSE the conviction and order that O'Quinn be refunded the $500 fine.

During a heated bench conference in the civil trial Iratex, U.S.A., Inc. v. Sewell & Riggs Judge Hittner entered the following oral order: "Number two, you need to stay out of the facilities up here on this floor unless you get prior permission. That's the jury room, also." O'Quinn's conviction resulted from an alleged violation of this order. We find the order to be vague and overbroad and thus will not support a conviction of criminal contempt.

"The judicial contempt power is a potent weapon. When it is founded upon a decree too vague to be understood, it can be a deadly one." International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n, 389 U.S. 64, 76, 88 S.Ct. 201, 208, 19 L.Ed.2d 236 (1967); See also Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473, 476 n. 2, 94 S.Ct. 713, 715 n. 2, 38 L.Ed.2d 661 (1974) (per curiam) (quoting this language from their earlier opinion). O'Quinn is accused of violating the order set forth above regarding staying out of the facilities without prior permission.

In this case there...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Gilday v. Dubois
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 5 Junio 1997
    ...light most favorable to the alleged contemnor. See Kemp, 947 F.2d at 16; NBA Properties, 895 F.2d at 32; see also United States v. O'Quinn, 913 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir.1990); In re Baldwin-United Corp., 770 F.2d 328, 339 (2d Cir.1985); New York Tel. Co. v. Communications Workers of America, ......
  • U.S. v. Morgan
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 15 Julio 1997
    ... ... Although this circuit has previously encountered the "maintenance" element of Section 856(a)(1), the evidence presented in those cases allowed us to paint with a broader brush than the evidence in this case will permit. See United States v. Roberts, 913 F.2d 211 (5th Cir.1990), cert. denied, ... ...
  • Blair Ventures, LLC v. Famous Restoration Inc. (In re Blair Ventures, LLC)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 5 Diciembre 2017
    ...order was ambiguous); Hess v. N.J. Transit Rail Operations, Inc. , 846 F.2d 114, 116 (2d Cir. 1988) (same); United States v. O'Quinn , 913 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir. 1990) (same).4 The Court therefore vacates the Bankruptcy Court's contempt order.In light of this ruling, the Court remands this......
  • Cooper v. Texaco, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 1 Mayo 1992
    ...may not be convicted of criminal contempt for violating an order unless that order is clear and unambiguous. United States v. O'Quinn, 913 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir.1990) (per curiam). 3 Any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the defendant. Id. (citing NBA Properties v. Gold, 895 F.2d 30, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT