In Re Karagozian

Citations: 44 Cal. App. 3d 516; 118 Cal. Rptr. 793; 1975 Cal. App. LEXIS 955Docket: Crim. 2062

Court: California Court of Appeal; January 14, 1975; California; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Petitioner Mike A. Karagozian, a deputy public defender in Fresno County, challenged a civil contempt order issued against him for disruptive behavior during the defense of Calvin Riggs in a criminal trial. The order, dated June 12, 1974, outlined 11 specific actions leading to the contempt ruling, which included:

1. Asking argumentative questions during jury voir dire despite sustained objections and court admonishments.
2. Annoying jury members to the extent that one juror expressed bias against the defense due to petitioner’s conduct.
3. Engaging in repeated arguments with the court after objections were sustained.
4. Asking the same objectionable questions multiple times.
5. Falsely accusing the court of making personal accusations against him.
6. Wrongly asserting that the court was colluding with the prosecution.
7. Interrupting a witness's response, necessitating a court order for him to be seated.
8. Displaying negative physical reactions to court rulings in front of the jury.
9. Snickering and shaking his head audibly near the jury after the court inquired about his actions with an exhibit.
10. Shouting defiantly in court, refusing to comply with orders to stop speaking during a witness's testimony.
11. Smiling while the court recounted his misconduct before the contempt finding.

These actions occurred after the trial judge had repeatedly warned petitioner regarding his conduct. The judge highlighted his authority to control the voir dire process after observing inappropriate questioning, leading to a motion by petitioner to dismiss the jury panel based on alleged judicial prejudice.

Petitioner sought to disqualify Judge Pettitt, claiming prejudice, but the motion was denied. During the proceedings, the petitioner asserted that Mr. Riggs could not receive due process in court, prompting the judge to respond critically about the petitioner's conduct. The judge warned the petitioner to remain quiet, threatening contempt charges if he did not comply, while indicating that the petitioner had the right to appeal. 

Throughout the trial, the judge repeatedly admonished the petitioner for disruptive behavior, including snickering and speaking out of turn during witness testimonies. On various occasions, the petitioner expressed defiance, stating he would not be quiet and attempted to make motions despite the judge's orders. The judge expressed that the petitioner's actions were disgraceful and contemptuous, interfering with court proceedings and disrespected the court's authority. Ultimately, the judge held the petitioner in contempt, indicating that further punitive measures would be determined after the trial. On the final day, the judge documented multiple instances of contempt, criticizing the petitioner for impugning the court's integrity and displaying laughter during serious proceedings, despite prior warnings to behave.

A contempt finding was made against the petitioner due to what the judge termed disgraceful and disrespectful courtroom conduct over four days. The judge noted that the petitioner repeatedly refused to allow a witness to answer questions and shouted in court when ordered to be quiet. Subsequently, the judge decided to include this exchange in a formal contempt order, found the petitioner in contempt, and deferred sentencing until trial's conclusion. The judge expressed that light handling of the situation would not correct the behavior, leading to a sentence of four days in jail and a $250 fine, with an additional day of jail time if the fine was unpaid by a specified date. The execution of the jail sentence was suspended pending jury deliberation.

The petitioner argued that he was not afforded due process, as the judge based the contempt ruling on 11 separate acts of behavior but treated them as a singular offense. Furthermore, the judge failed to provide prior notice of the specific charges or allow the petitioner the chance to defend himself before sentencing. The judge delayed detailing the contempt acts until six days after the ruling. The legal precedent cited, Taylor v. Hayes, emphasizes the necessity for clear notice and the opportunity for response in contempt cases, contrasting the judge's handling of the petitioner’s situation, which lacked these procedural safeguards.

The United States Supreme Court determined that the judge's failure to provide the contemnor with notice of charges, a hearing, and an opportunity to present a defense violated the due process protections of the United States Constitution. The respondent attempted to differentiate this case from Taylor, arguing that the contempt adjudication occurred during the ongoing criminal trial, unlike in Taylor, where it followed the trial. However, this distinction was deemed unrealistic, as it overlooks the critical basis for a judge's power to impose summary punishment for contempt during a trial. The court acknowledged that while judges must maintain courtroom control to prevent obstruction of justice, the urgency for such summary actions diminishes once a trial concludes. The ruling emphasized that if contempt adjudication and sentencing are postponed until after the trial, the necessity for immediate action without due process is significantly weakened. The court noted that the record was insufficient to determine whether the petitioner was genuinely in contempt, but acknowledged that the petitioner exhibited disruptive behavior during the trial. To protect the integrity of the judicial process, the case should be retried by a different judge. Consequently, the contempt order was annulled, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.