◆ SpookStack

Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 119 criminal contempt and sentencing them to imprison- ment. The decisive issue in the Sucher case was whether Rule 42(a) applied at the end of the case. Of significance to the present case is the fact that the Court in Sacher took it as conceded that there was no substantial issue when, as in the present case, the judge acted promptly. By way of summary, the Supreme Court stated at 13-14: But that there may be no misunderstanding, we make clear that this Court, if its aid be needed, will unhesitatingly protect counsel in fearless, vigorous and effective performance of every duty pertaining to the office of the advocate on behalf of any person whatsoever. But it will not equate contempt with courage or insults with independence. It will also protect the processes of orderly trial, which is the supreme object of the lawyer’s calling. It is clear in the present case that Judge Perry properly followed the procedures set forth in Rule 42(a). The conduct clearly was not committed outside “the actual presence of the court” nor is it contended that the judge did not see or héar such conduct. Also, the judge promptly signed and entered an order reciting the facts. It is to be noted before taking up the individual contempt orders that both Haas and Taylor were counsel for the Anderson plaintiffs. Taking up the Haas incident first, this incident developed very shortly after Haas had been repri- manded for directing a derogatory statement towards the judge. Thereafter, the jury was excused because of argument regarding the propriety of a question, When the jury returned the judge struck the last question and told the jury to disregard it. Haas resumed his examination of Hanrahan and upon objection the judge told Haas that they had just gotten through that out of the presence of the jury and “you will not go into that subject matter any further.” Haas responded that he did not even get to argue it and the court repeated, “I said you will not go into it any further.”