United States v. Mustafa Abdul-Qadir Al-Din Walee Abdulazeem Al-Din Charles Kunta Lewis (In re Freed), Case No. 1:11–CR–97.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
Writing for the CourtROBERT J. JONKER
Citation960 F.Supp.2d 716
Decision Date31 July 2013
Docket NumberCase No. 1:11–CR–97.
PartiesIn re Juror Steven Phillip FREED. United States of America v. Mustafa Abdul–Qadir Al–Din Walee Abdulazeem Al–Din Charles Kunta Lewis, Sr. Ralphael Remier Crenshaw.

960 F.Supp.2d 716

In re Juror Steven Phillip FREED.
United States of America
v.
Mustafa Abdul–Qadir Al–Din Walee Abdulazeem Al–Din Charles Kunta Lewis, Sr.
Ralphael Remier Crenshaw.

Case No. 1:11–CR–97.

United States District Court,
W.D. Michigan,
Southern Division.

July 31, 2013.


[960 F.Supp.2d 717]


Scott Allen Mertens, Mertens Laxton and Clement PLLC, Lansing, MI, for Defendant Mustafa Abdul–Qadir Al–Din.

Scott Graham, Scott Graham PLLC, Portage, MI, for Defendant Walee Abdulazeem Al–Din.


Jeffrey J. O'Hara, Grand Rapids, MI, for Defendant Charles Kunta Lewis, Sr.

Paul Mitchell, Paul L. Mitchell PLLC, Grand Rapids, MI, for Defendant Ralphael Remier Crenshaw.

Timothy P. VerHey, Brian K. Delaney, U.S. Attorney, Grand Rapids, MI, for United States.

ORDER

ROBERT J. JONKER, District Judge.

This Civil Contempt Order involves Juror Steven Phillip Freed, Juror Number 02–0084. The Court summoned Mr. Freed by standard juror summons. Mr. Freed appeared as part of the jury venire, responded to questions from the Court and counsel for the parties and was ultimately selected to sit as one of two alternate jurors for an estimated three week trial. When the Court instructed the jurors to stand and be sworn, Mr. Freed refused to stand. After entreaty from the Court, Mr. Freed did eventually stand, but he did not take the oath with this fellow jurors. When questioned by the Court, he persisted in his refusal to take the oath and submit to jury service as required by the original juror summons, by his ultimate selection to serve, and by the direct order of the Court. After consulting with counsel, the Court determined that it had no choice but to hold Mr. Freed in civil contempt.

[960 F.Supp.2d 718]

The Court did so and remanded Mr. Freed to the Marshal. As of the close of business on jury selection day, the Marshal Service informed the Court that Mr. Freed was not interested in purging his contempt at the time, and so the Court arranged overnight lodging for Mr. Freed in Marshal custody. After consulting with counsel, the Court selected another juror to serve in the seat Mr. Freed was initially selected to occupy. The jury of twelve, with two alternates, was then sworn.

It is a basic proposition of law that parties must comply promptly with all orders and judgments of courts. See Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 458, 95 S.Ct. 584, 42 L.Ed.2d 574 (1975). Failure to do so may lead to contempt citation and sanctions.

A contempt finding is appropriate where a party shows by clear and convincing evidence that the litigant violated “ ‘a definite and specific order of the court requiring him to perform or refrain from performing a particular act or acts with knowledge of the court's order.’ ” Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Cincinnati Bronze, Inc., 829 F.2d 585, 591 (6th Cir.1987), ( quoting SEC v. First Financial Group of Texas, Inc., 659 F.2d 660, 669 (5th Cir.1981)); see also Glover v. Johnson, 138 F.3d 229, 244 (6th Cir.1998) ( quoting Glover v. Johnson, 934 F.2d 703, 708 (6th Cir.1991)). Any sanction imposed for a civil contempt must have as its goal coercing compliance with the Court's orders or compensating for losses sustained because of the contempt, and not punishment for wrongdoing. See Glover v. Johnson, 199 F.3d 310, 313 (6th Cir.1999) (citing TWM Manufacturing Co. v. Dura Corp., 722 F.2d 1261, 1273 (6th Cir.1983)).

In International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, the Supreme Court said that, “The paradigmatic coercive, civil contempt sanction, as set forth in Gompers [ v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 442, 31 S.Ct. 492, 55 L.Ed. 797 (1911) ], involves confining a contemnor indefinitely until he complies with an affirmative command such as an order ‘to pay alimony, or to surrender property ordered to be turned over to a receiver, or to make a conveyance.’ ” 512 U.S. 821, 828, 114 S.Ct....

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • In re Richard N.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • August 29, 2014
    ...Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 635, 108 S.Ct. 1423, 99 L.Ed.2d 721 ).Examples of jurors who were held in civil contempt, include: In re Freed, 960 F.Supp.2d 716, (W.D.Mich., 2013), impaneled alternate juror refused to serve on jury, was imprisoned until jury for which he had been selected had been d......
  • In re Rennaker, CASE NO. 1:17-MC-55
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • April 16, 2018
    ...which required a recalcitrant grand juror to sit in the court's hallway when the grand jury was in session. See also In re Freed, 960 F. Supp. 2d 716 (W.D. Mich. 2013) (requiring recalcitrant petit juror to sit in the courtroom while the petit jury completed their services). The Court sees ......
2 cases
  • In re Richard N.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • August 29, 2014
    ...Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 635, 108 S.Ct. 1423, 99 L.Ed.2d 721 ).Examples of jurors who were held in civil contempt, include: In re Freed, 960 F.Supp.2d 716, (W.D.Mich., 2013), impaneled alternate juror refused to serve on jury, was imprisoned until jury for which he had been selected had been d......
  • In re Rennaker, CASE NO. 1:17-MC-55
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • April 16, 2018
    ...which required a recalcitrant grand juror to sit in the court's hallway when the grand jury was in session. See also In re Freed, 960 F. Supp. 2d 716 (W.D. Mich. 2013) (requiring recalcitrant petit juror to sit in the courtroom while the petit jury completed their services). The Court sees ......

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