Reader Ad Slot
Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Fred Hampton — Part 3
Page 88
88 / 251
84 Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370
A court of the United States shall have power to
punish by fine or imprisonment, at its diseretion,
such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—-
“(1) Misbehavior of any person in its: presence or
so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of
justice... .”
The Supreme Court, commenting on this statute in Jn re
McConnell, 370 U.S. 230, 288-34 (1962), explained that
this provision was enacted by Congress “in order to cor-
rect serious abuses of the summary contempt power that
had grown up... revealing ‘a Congressional intent to
safeguard Constitutional procedures by limiting courts
... to “the least possible power adequate to the end
proposed.”’” The Court in McConnell then defined the
issue:
Thus the question in this case comes down to
whether it can “clearly be shown” on this record
that the petitioner’s statements while attempting to
make his offers of proof actually obstructed the dis-
trict judge in “the performance of judicial duty.”
Id. at 234.
In the case before us, paraphrasing the above-quoted
language, the question comes down to whether it can
“clearly be shown” on the record that the respective con-
duct of Haas and Taylor actually obstructed the district
judge in the “performance of judicial duty.” We are con-
vinced that their conduct cannot be so characterized.
The Taylor episode must be viewed against the
background of the events leading up to it: The trial
judge’s erroneous accusation before the jury that Haas
had deliberately and wilfully misread’ the statement
_ about the stipulation; the judge’s repeated denials-to per-
mit the inspection of the court’s transcript for verifica-
tion that Haas had not “misread the statement”; the
judge’s refusal to correct the record immediately, but in
lieu thereof giving the defendants ten days to respond.
These combined circumstances apparently caused
Taylor to reach the “breaking point” of his patience and
forbearance. We also must take into consideration that
the episode occurred while the court was recessed, and
Reveal the original PDF page, then click a word to highlight the OCR text.
Community corrections
No user corrections yet.
Comments
No comments on this document yet.
Bottom Reader Ad Slot
Bottom Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Continue Exploring
Agency Collection
Explore This Archive Cluster
Broad Topic Hub
Topic Hub
letter
bureau
Related subtopics
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic